[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5240-H5260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's
6-year balanced budget.
This debate is about much more than dollars and cents--it is about
our Nation's fundamental priorities and values. The differences between
the Gingrich budget and the President's budget are very clear. These
plans offer competing visions for America's future,
[[Page H5241]]
and they present all Americans with a stark choice.
The President's plan balances the budget and provides tax relief for
the middle class while protecting key priorities like Medicare,
Medicaid, education and the environment.
President Clinton's budget will guarantee Medicare's solvency through
2005, while giving our seniors greater choice and flexibility. It cuts
down on fraud and abuse in Medicaid, shakes up the welfare system, and
provides hard working families with tax credits to pay for college or
to start a business.
The Gingrich budget hits the elderly and our children the hardest.
New York alone will lose $14 billion in Medicare funding and $10
billion from Medicaid under Newt Gingrich's budget. Seniors will lose
long-term care and children will be denied health care. Financially
strapped school systems--like the one in Yonkers, NY, will lose
millions in Federal aid.
The choice is clear--the President's balanced budget provides tax
relief for hard working Americans while protecting the priorities of
the American people. Newt Gingrich's budget increases spending at the
Pentagon while slashing Medicare, Medicaid, education and the
environment.
Let's listen to what a very senior Republican from my State of New
York recently had to say about the Gingrich revolution:
Americans did not vote to cut funding for education and cut
funding for the environment and cut funding for programs they
care about it.
Those were Al D'Amato's words--let's take his advice, reject the
Gingrich budget and support the President's plan.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would caution that Members should avoid
references to individual Senators.
{time} 1500
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the latest
round of Republican Medicare cuts. The American people rejected this
extreme agenda last year, and I call on my colleagues to reject it
today. The Medicare cuts contained in the Republican budget are
designed to create a second-class health care system for America's
seniors. Their drastic cuts are compounded by dangerous policy
proposals which will truly force Medicare to ``wither on the vine,'' as
the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, called for last
year. Under the Gingrich budget seniors will pay more and they will get
less health care.
The medical savings accounts in the Republican plan will skim off the
healthiest and the wealthiest individuals and threaten to leave the
remaining millions of seniors vulnerable to a weakened Medicare system,
while increasing their costs. The Republican plan to cut $168 billion
from Medicare and $72 billion from Medicaid is far more than is
necessary to ensure the solvency of the trust fund.
The President's budget proves that. The President's budget makes
Medicare solvent for the same number of years as the Republican budget,
but does so without making such deep cuts. So why would the Republicans
cut so deeply? The answer is $176 billion in tax breaks for the
wealthiest in our country.
Mr. Chairman, the American people rejected, out of hand, the extreme
agenda of the Republican resolution when Speaker Gingrich tried to take
the country hostage by shutting down the Government and then going home
for the Christmas vacation. Congress should not slash Medicare and
Medicaid for millions of America's seniors in order to pay for tax
breaks for the wealthiest few. It was wrong last year, and it is wrong
today. I call on my colleagues to reject the Republicans' failed
agenda.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to my
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, listening again to my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, I think back again to the Washington Post editorial that
talked about Mediscare. Here they go again. Mr. Chairman, the fact is
this: that spending per patient will increase from $5,200 to $7,000
under our plan. That is no cut. There is no increase in deductibles,
copayments, or premiums. And the gentlewoman neglected to admit that
the Medicare trust fund is $4 billion in arrears. That is
unconscionable. That is why we must have this budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona can continue to
try to fool the American public, when in fact if you add more seniors
to the program, if you allow for inflation, the Republican budget in
fact does cut Medicare for seniors. It allows them to have to pay
increased deductibles and increases their medical bills, and no matter
how they want to tell us that they are slowing the rate of growth, they
really, truly want to see this program changed and it wither on the
vine, as their leader, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], has
talked about.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] to respond.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that
they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation of
approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of
the House.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my friend, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut, that again she misquotes people, not only
an interesting use of numbers, but with reference to withering on the
vine. The full record indicates, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut
knows, the Speaker was referring to the Health Care Financing
Administration and some of the problems with socialized medicine that
existed in the former Soviet Union. That quote has been culled
incorrectly.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut knows this, as she also knows the
fact that we are increasing expenditures per beneficiary. There is no
dispute with that, nor is there a dispute, Mr. Chairman, with this
cold, hard fact of reality: The Medicare trust fund is already $4
billion in arrears.
I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, at long last, have they no sense
of decency left? Let us save Medicare for seniors, quit worrying about
the next election, enact this budget, and save the program.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the very decent
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, talk about decency; Bob Dole: ``I was there
fighting the fight, voting against Medicare in 1965 because we knew it
would not work.''
``Now, we didn't get rid of it in round 1, because we didn't think
that was politically smart, and we don't think that is the right way to
go through a transition. But we believe it is going to wither on the
vine.'' The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, speaking to the
Blue Cross-Blue Shield conference on October 24, 1995.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and
member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona is going to take
exception to quotes, let us talk facts. In fact, the Republican budget
proposes the deepest cuts in Medicare, future Medicare spending; once
again, $161 billion over 6 years, compared to $117 billion in the
President's budget before us.
Let us look behind these numbers, however, so we understand exactly
where those cuts fall. One hundred and twenty three billion dollars
comes from part A, the reimbursements to hospitals and home nursing
care. There is no way we can take these cuts out of future spending and
hospitals without devastating the network of essential care provided by
hospitals all across this country. This cut is deeper than their cut
last year.
As regards hospital reimbursement, home health care services so vital
to seniors, they cut more than they cut last year. I think the American
people know full well that their budget last
[[Page H5242]]
year on Medicare cuts was reckless, was dangerous, and threatened the
care of our elderly.
As regards the part B premium, for those who might elect the managed
care option under their Medicare revisions, the GOP budget would leave
unlimited exposure to physician charges. Medicare would cover a portion
of the physician charges, but whatever the physician wanted to bill in
addition to that, the senior would be responsible for.
The bottom line on their budget: Closed hospitals in many parts of
the country, and higher doctor bills payable out of the pockets of the
senior citizens of this country.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman voting for the
budget?
Mr. POMEROY. I am going to vote for the President's budget. I will
oppose the GOP budget, for the reasons that I am saying.
Mr. Chairman, another area of important contrast involves the
Medicaid Program. The Medicaid Program is a major source of
reimbursement, as members know, for those senior citizens in nursing
homes without resources. They will, combined with the reductions in
State funding, devastate reimbursement in the Medicaid Program, and the
President's budget compares very favorably in this area as well.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the minority on their
tactics, because we have been studying them and learning from them. It
is interesting that in the hour that they came to the floor to support
the President's budget, they do not have anything good to say about it.
So what they do is come to the floor and try to attack our budget.
Every one of them are smart, good, decent people who know that
Medicare is going bankrupt. They furthermore know that we are
increasing the number of dollars behind the senior citizen from $4,800
per senior citizen to $7,000 for each senior citizen.
But what is curious about this debate is that the plan basically has
all its savings at the end. Take a typical American diet, I would say
to the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde; that you are going to lose
50 pounds this year; you are going to lose 1 pound in the first week
and 49 in the last week.
So first of all, it is backloaded. In other words, we put all the
heavy lifting off for the children of the next century. We have
children that visit this Capitol every day, and we are asking them to
do all the heavy lifting, while we kind of get away scot-free. We do
not want to do that.
Second, we do not believe in tax increases.
Third, if the economy has improved so much, why is it the President
keeps running around talking about wage stagnation and job insecurity?
It is because it is real. It is because they have not been able to grow
this economy, to provide job security, permanent jobs, high-paying
jobs, because the American people do not have the money to save and
invest and risk-take, and give our workers the tools they need to
compete and win.
Finally, everyone on this floor knows that at the end of the day, we
are going to have to come to grips with entitlement programs. Our
philosophy is we can manage them better by designing local solutions to
local problems for less cost.
But I wish we could spend this hour having you defend or support the
President's budget, rather than attacking ours. It is a curious way to
operate, but I think I understand it, when you have so much difficulty
finding the good reasons to support the President in his very feeble
efforts.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I have no problem defending the President's budget
versus that of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. The gentleman from
Ohio worked hard, but the President's is much better, much better for
education and training, much better potentially for reforming Medicare
in a fashion that will work.
The reality is your changes, you add some money up early, your
provider Medicare cuts are going to have to be deeper in the final
year, 2002, than they were in your original plan. Why? to accommodate
your tax cuts. You talk about front end and back end loading. Somehow,
there is enough money for your tax cut in 1997, for you show a deficit
increase then, too. Miraculously, your tax cut costs less in 2002 than
it does in 2001. There is some end loading in the President's, but you
have the same problem. If you did not want that, if you wanted a nice,
steady flow, you would have voted for the coalition budget.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it is really dubious
to make the claim that the President is spending more on any program
that is in the discretionary accounts, because you have $67 billion in
unspecified cuts. If we wanted to do a really good job, an effort at
this in the style of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, we
would take the $67 billion in cuts and we would hold charts up of the
children who we think you will hurt, or we will hold up charts of any
number of discretionary programs and say you are going to cut those.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have done the most, we have
been able to accomplish the most amount of change, and you all endorsed
it. About 2 weeks ago the President of the United States had a budget
that said we would have spent $7 billion more in 1996 than we spent in
1995. We said, no, no, we want $23 billion less. And guess what, the
revolution has come, and guess what, it is winning. And do you know
why? You all voted for it. You voted for the most massive amount of
downsizing of Washington spending since World War II. I think it is
fantastic that you did it.
Now, for the period of the next 6 years, there is not fundamentally
that much difference between you and us on Washington spending, because
you have already endorsed our program. Now what we are asking you to do
is to endorse the rest of our program that takes entitlement programs
that are going through the roof, that are threatening to sink the young
people's future, that are destroying job security and creating wage
stagnation, and we are saying, look, take the program out of
Washington, send it home, design a local solution for a local problem.
And we do not want to have higher taxes on the American people. People
pay too much in taxes.
Mr. Chairman, the choices are pretty clear between these two
alternatives, but I am glad that the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Sabo, is now defending or supporting the President's budget rather than
focusing on the shortfalls in ours, because we believe strongly in ours
and we are glad that the gentleman at least believes in his.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we impose discipline on
discretionary spending. We did it in 1993. I just have to say to my
friend, the chairman of the committee, I am curious that if it was his
program that finally passed, why he had to shut the Government for
Christmas.
There were some issues at odds: Funding for education, for
environmental protection, for inspection of safety, very important
priorities. That is the difference. Frankly, there are very important
differences over the future: Over educational funding, training,
research and development; significant differences between the
President's budget and its potential for doing good things for the
future of our economy, things that are left out of your budget.
{time} 1515
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that the
President was asking and many of you were asking to spend $7 billion
more in 1996 than in 1995. We were saying, No, no, we don't want to do
that. We want to downsize Washington programs and spend less. At the
end of the day, we ended up spending $23 billion less. You
[[Page H5243]]
wanted $7 billion more, we spent $23 billion less. That is a $30
billion difference.
The thing that is so amazing is that we frankly have already won that
debate, because you all voted for this. There were only 32 votes
against this appropriation bill that lowers the whole base of spending
in Washington. It is a terrific accomplishment by this Congress. I want
to congratulate you for being part of it.
But when you start this big argument about the difference in
Washington spending, frankly, folks, that debate is done. You already
conceded our point. We are going to have the most massive amount of
downsizing of Washington and the most amount of hope for the American
people we have had in terms of controlling this Government in 50 years.
I think it is reason to celebrate, not fight. We appreciate your
support of that.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich], the Budget chairman, on his disingenuousness.
All the budgets have agreed that we would balance in 7 years. All the
budgets have agreed that we would downsize. So what else is new? The
question is, inside of that, what is going to be cut?
What is not going to be cut inside of yours, ladies and gentlemen, is
Star Wars, a $13 billion increase in the Pentagon, and all the taxes
for the wealthy, and in the meantime the people on Medicare pay higher
doctor bills, more seniors will be in the system, there will be more
inflation. You have got a lot of backloading. Then Mr. Dole has already
said, ``I tried to get Medicare once but it was not politically timely,
but I think we can do better this time.''
But what is disturbing is how come I cannot get more votes for the
Congressional Black Caucus budget because we are Democrats, too, with
one of the better programs that have been on the floor. I ask the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] to consider that.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I think in our
Committee on the Budget there was not much talk about the positive
notes on the President's budget is because the President's budget is
full of tricks. It takes taxes and says we are going to have tax cuts,
but then it restores all those tax cuts and ends up actually with a tax
increase of $16 billion after the year 2002.
It does not have many spending cuts so nobody is particularly
offended. Technically it balances because of a gimmick. The President
says, ``Look, if we're not on track by the year 2000, then I want you
to take another $67 billion out of discretionary spending.'' That is
more discretionary cuts than even the Republicans have suggested in
that length of time. It is going to be impossible. It is pretending
that it balances when it does not. I bet there are a lot of Democrats
that are going to be unwilling to vote for the President's budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our Federal budget should be a statement
of our national values. President Clinton's budget is. It protects and
invests in the health, education, and well-being of the American
people, protects the environment, as well as protecting Medicare and
Medicaid.
I have many problems with the Republication budget. However, the most
extreme and shortsighted part of the GOP budget plan is the severe cuts
to education and job training. Essentially these vital programs to
prepare the American people for the challenge of a new global economy
are cut by 25 percent from this year's funding and then frozen for 6
years. Many scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. This
renewed attack on education places the Republican budget on a collision
course with the Clinton administration, which has proposed $61 billion
more in investments for education and job training.
For health programs, the Republican plan calls for drastic cuts in
programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical
research. Is this a statement of our national values? The plan to cut
purchasing power for the National Institutes of Health by 16 percent is
extreme and is lacking in an understanding of the importance of
investment in biomedical research.
Over and over again the Republican budget makes cuts where we should
be making investments. I do not believe it is a statement of our
national values. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the GOP plan
and be proud to vote ``aye'' on the Clinton proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 1997 Republican budget
resolution. Like last year's budget, the plan is out-of-touch with the
American people and should be rejected by the House.
In 1993, President Clinton working with Congress began a process of
deficit reduction that has produced Federal deficits which have gone
down for 4 years in a row. In fact, the Federal budget deficit has been
cut in half since the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. We need a
continuation of the moderate proposals which have been working. We do
not need another extreme budget plan to foster bitter confrontation
between the Republican Congress and the administration. The American
people reject this tactic; they want bipartisan cooperation in solving
problems.
The Republican plan proposes to cut Medicare by $168 billion over the
next 6 years. Even worse, the plan proposes to end 30 years of
universal coverage for senior citizens and allow the healthy and
wealthy to opt out of the program causing disruption and placing the
entire Medicare Program at risk.
The Republican plan for Medicaid is even more extreme. A cut of $72
billion over 6 years and allowing the States to cut even more in State
payments would be severely destructive to the program. The plan also
would eliminate the current guarantees of health coverage for low-
income children, pregnant women, disabled people, and senior citizens.
Thankfully, the President has already rejected the drastic approach and
proposed a reasonable plan to cap individual benefits resulting in
comparable savings without millions of Americans losing health
coverage.
Likewise, the Republican budget includes much of the Republican
welfare plan which was vetoed by the President because it was too
extreme and did little to move people from welfare to work. There
appears to be little to recommend proceeding with the same plan
encouraging a race to the bottom for State welfare programs.
With regard to discretionary spending, the Republican plan is once
again extreme. Funding for defense programs is increased greatly over
the Pentagon's request. On the other hand, nondefense spending falls
dramatically; a 25-percent reduction in purchasing power for domestic
programs.
For health programs, the Republican plan calls for drastic cuts to
programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical
research. The plan to cut purchasing power for the National Institutes
of Health [NIH] by 16 percent is extreme and lacking in an
understanding of the important of investment in biomedical research.
Again this year, the Republican budget plan proposes to cut important
worker protection programs, including the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration [OSHA] by more than 20 percent while terminating
important research on workplace safety. The budget plan also calls for
the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act thus
threatening other important worker income security protections.
Nonetheless, the most extreme and short-sighted part of the GOP
budget plan is the severe cuts to education and job training programs.
Essentially, these vital programs to prepare the American people for
the challenges of a new global economy are cut by 25 percent from this
year's funding and then frozen for 6 years. Important education reforms
are terminated and funding for bilingual education is eliminated. Many
scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. The successful
direct Student Loan Program is also eliminated. This renewed attack on
education places the Republican budget on a collision course with the
Clinton administration which has proposed $61 billion more in
investments for education and job training.
Meanwhile, this plan would phase-out funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as
well as
[[Page H5244]]
eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Again, these proposals are short-sighted and extreme.
Again, the Republican plan fails to adequately protect the
environment. The plan would cut purchasing power for natural resources
and environmental protection by 26 percent. It also focuses cuts at the
Environmental Protection Agency based on flawed risk-based regulation
reforms. The American people want the environment protected. They want
clean water, clean air, and access to well-kept national parks.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is deja vu from last
year's Gingrich budget. This budget sets in motion the same failed
tactic of confrontation that resulted in the longest and most
destructive Government shutdowns in our Nation's history. I fear that
not enough was learned by the Republican leadership from last year's
failures.
I urge my colleagues to reject this fundamentally flawed Republican
budget and insist that a bipartisan budget proposal be adopted to move
us on an orderly course to complete the important budget work of this
Congress.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank my good friend and ranking member
from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that I think the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is right. We do need to be discussing the Clinton
budget, and we do need to be doing it in contrast to the Republican
budget so the American people can fully understand. I do think that we
have a sense of responsibility here and we are right, or he is right,
we did collectively come together to vote on that last bill,
appropriations bill, to ensure that the Government remained open, which
is what the Democrats were trying to do all year long.
But one thing we did stand up and say is that we did not like those
priorities because it did not ensure the protection of Medicare, it
relinquished the responsibility for young children to have good health
by cutting Medicaid so drastically, and then it gave short shrift to
research and development. And here we are again now, looking at this
new budget with the same kinds of poison-pen activities.
I support the Clinton budget because it recognizes that we as
Americans must be embracing of all of us. It supports research and
development, it includes a very vital program that I have heard my
colleagues make jokes about, and that is the Summer Youth Jobs Program
that puts young people back to work, and then I think we should refresh
our memories about what happens when we recklessly cut taxes.
I believe in cutting taxes, and I think we need to be fair to the
American people. If we cut taxes, we need to ensure the least of those
who are working and not engaged in receiving welfare and respecting the
earned income tax credit. But with this new budget, we are seeing the
Republicans cutting $200 billion of revenue. Where does it go? It does
not go to the average working American. It goes to those who are
already well-endowed.
We realize that under a Republican President when that same
philosophy and budgeting process was implemented, we for the first time
in this Nation began to define the deficit in one word, trillions.
Now we are coming to this Congress and asking for a fair budgeting
process, one that emphasizes the environment, one that emphasizes
education, one that emphasizes working America, and one that recognizes
that this country would not be where it is today if we had not
supported research and development. We would not be where we are today
in terms of health care nor would we be where we are today in terms of
the kinds of technology and jobs that are created. I think research and
development is the work of the 21st century. That creates the work
opportunities for the 21st century. It would be shameful to cut so
drastically, what we have done in this Republican budget.
So I would simply say that we are talking about a budget that has
priorities, priorities of balance and a priority that balances what
this budget should be about and, yes, does not take away $200 billion
of revenue that American people will need to ensure a better quality of
life.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for
8 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this very vigorous
debate. It has been very encouraging and very stimulating. I hope the
American people are watching, because there are two very clear
differences held here on the floor as to where this country ought to be
going.
My good friend from Houston, TX, my neighbor who just spoke, was very
clear about where the Democrats are, where the liberals are. They want
priorities and they want to maintain the Washington spending that they
have been so proud of for all these 40 years. They want to continue
these programs. They do not want to change them, and they are hanging
on by their fingernails every chance that they can to continue taking
money from the American families and paying for their priorities. That
is what this is all about. That is why I rise in opposition to the
President's budget substitute and I urge my colleagues to support the
Dole budget.
Mr. Chairman, today's debate mirrors the greater debate going on in
this country. On the one hand we have the President's budget which is
much like the present administration. Rhetorically the President's
budget looks great. It seemingly balances the budget. It seemingly
gives tax relief to American families. It seemingly urges welfare
reform. But if we look at the numbing details, a very different picture
emerges. It is the picture of a President who promised a middle-class
tax cut and then socked a gas tax on middle-class families and a Social
Security tax on America's seniors.
It is the picture of a President who promised to end welfare as we
know it and then vetoed commonsense welfare reform twice.
It is the picture of a President who promised to balance the budget
in 5 years, then in 10 years, and then every year in between.
And it is the picture of a President that says one thing and does
another.
Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why this President is so strongly
supported by Hollywood. His budget is kind of like a Hollywood set. It
is a sturdy-looking facade backed by nothing more than a vivid
imagination.
The contrast with the Dole budget is very striking. The Dole budget
is the real thing, much like the man himself. It cuts taxes for
American families, not as much as I would like, but certainly more than
the President even pretends to cut; it saves Medicare for the next
generation, and it balances in 6 years using real numbers, real
assumptions, and real cuts in wasteful Washington spending.
So, Mr. Chairman, the American people yearn for the real thing. They
do not want any more empty promises. They do not want any more phony
numbers, and they do not want bigger government cloaked in Clinton
rhetoric. They want a smaller, more effective Federal Government. They
want lower taxes. They want real welfare reform. And they want a
balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Clinton budget and
vote for the real thing, the Dole budget.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, a few short weeks ago the Congressional
Budget Office [CBO] estimated the budget deficit for the current fiscal
year, 1996, to be $145 billion. At that time CBO also estimated that
the deficit, without some intervening action by the Congress, will top
$200 billion in fiscal 1999, reach $311 billion in 2003, and explode to
$403 billion in 2006.
And the national debt continues its climb too and today is hovering
near $5.1 trillion. Without significant deficit reduction, the national
debt of the United States will exceed $7 trillion in 2006, a level of
future debt the nation clearly cannot afford.
As a member of the coalition, I am proud of the work our group has
done this year in developing and presenting an alternative resolution
that balances the Federal budget, with significant deficit reduction
and program reforms that stem the hemorrhaging national
[[Page H5245]]
debt. The coalition budget alternative is comprehensive and fair, and I
am pleased to vote to support it today. In doing so, I applaud the work
of Bill Orton and Charlie Stenholm and the other coalition members for
their hard work.
Let me also congratulate Chairman John Kasich, Ranking Member Martin
Sabo, and all the members of the Budget Committee for the work they
have done this year. Chairman Kasich and Mr. Sabo are both dedicated to
balancing the budget, and one of my regrets is that we are not here
today with a budget resolution that both of our Budget Committee
leaders can support.
Mr. Chairman, I am also supporting President Clinton's budget
proposal presented by the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Sabo], as well
as the Republican resolution presented by Chairman Kasich because both
of these budget resolutions are comprehensive and will set in motion
the needed policy and spending changes necessary to reach a balanced
budget.
Balancing the budget should be the top priority of the Congress;
there can be no other. As we in the Congress proceed to implement the
fiscal year 1997 Budget Resolution, let us keep the goal of reducing
spending and balancing the budget central to all of our efforts.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sabo
substitute, the President's balanced budget. This plan brings the
budget into balance by the year 2002 by providing $523.4 billion in
total deficit reduction over the next 6 years, including cuts of $265
billion from entitlement spending alone.
The President's plan--like the Republican budget--brings us to
balance by 2002, but unlike the GOP plan, it does not require that our
seniors, education, and environmental protection bear a
disproportionate share of the burden for deficit reduction.
For instance, while the President's plan would maintain direct
student loans, as used by 2.5 million students in 1,400 schools
nationwide, the Republican plan would eliminate them altogether. The
Republican plan also eliminates the AmeriCorps national and community
service program. Overall, the GOP plan would provide $60.6 billion less
for elementary, secondary, and higher education and training than the
President's plan. Likewise, the President's plan demonstrates a
commitment to clean air and water while the Republican plan provides
$13 billion less on protection and cleanup of our environment. And, the
Republican Medicare reductions mirror those proposed in last year's
budget while the President proposes real reform that protects seniors
and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund.
However, I want to express my serious reservations over the fact that
this budget resolution, as well as the Republican plan, assumes a
reduction in the Consumer Price Index [CPI], the standard used to
calculate the cost-of-living adjustments for various programs including
Social Security.
The alternatives before us today assume that the Bureau of Labor
Statistics [BLS] will reduce the CPI by 0.2 percent in 1998 and 0.4
percent in 2000. There is no requirement that Congress review or
approve this change. Although last year I successfully amended
legislation to require that Congress must review and vote on such
changes, my amendment to the Labor appropriations bill was dropped in
the final product.
Additionally, I want to express my reservations about the tax cuts
contained in the President's budget. With our Nation facing a debt of
over $5 trillion, I do not support tax cuts at this time. Any savings
should be applied to deficit reduction.
Despite these concerns, which will be addressed in more detail in
later bills, the President's budget plan is sound deficit reduction. It
brings our budget into balance while maintaining our commitment to
education, environmental protection, seniors, and our communities.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sabo
amendment, which forwards President Clinton's budget proposal. The
President's budget is balanced in 6 years as scored by the CBO. It
continues the fundamental reforms begun by this administration while
not doing long-term damage to programs as does the budget presented by
the Republicans. It funds education in a way that continues progress
toward our children's futures. It funds health care for the poor, the
young, the disabled and the old. It funds programs to train the
underemployed so that we can reduce dependence on welfare programs for
the able bodies. It's family- and taxpayer-friendly.
This body has rejected two alternative budgets today. The American
public rejects the Republican budget, because it is almost the same as
the one we saw last year. I urge my colleagues to act with reason and
not drag the country through the same mess we went through last year
when there was no rhyme nor reason to the fiscal crisis that the
Republican majority brought to us by trying to pressure the American
people to accept less than they want and deserve.
The President's budget saves money for local and state government and
still reserves funds for valuable programs to support the children,
families and vulnerable among our population. It reforms our welfare
programs in a fashion that is not tough on kids.
I appeal to my colleagues, especially those on the other side of the
aisle. Don't callously harm the well-being of our seniors, our
children, our working poor, and our homeless. Vote for the Sabo
amendment so that we can move forward to develop a reasonable Federal
budget that will work for all the American people.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of President
Clinton's proposal to balance the budget. While it is not the budget
that I would write, this budget does eliminate the deficit by the year
2002 while protecting the elderly from higher Medicare premiums,
preserving Medicaid for the poor and those in nursing homes, protecting
the environment, and providing adequate funds for education.
If I were drafting this budget, I would have cut an additional $25
billion from defense and added that back to the Medicare trust fund for
hospital and physician reimbursements. In my view, these Medicare cuts
are too large for our hospitals, particularly teaching hospitals and
those which treat many poor patients.
We can lessen the impact of the Medicare reductions if we treat the
defense budget under the same standard as every other part of the
budget. Instead defense cuts are left off the table. That is not right.
The reality is that every Member of Congress could come up with their
own plan to balance the budget. There are other changes that I would
make as well, but the Clinton budget is the closest to my values. That
is why it has my support. It is not perfect, but it gets the job done.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117,
noes 304, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 178]
AYES--117
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Murtha
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Richardson
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Slaughter
Spratt
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Vento
Volkmer
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Yates
NOES--304
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
[[Page H5246]]
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Coleman
Ehlers
Gibbons
Hayes
Jacobs
Lewis (CA)
Manzullo
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Paxon
Quillen
Talent
{time} 1549
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Gibbons for, with Mr. Paxon against.
Mr. Coleman for, with Mr. Miller against.
Messrs. HYDE, HORN, POSHARD, NETHERCUTT, and SERRANO changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I ask that my friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] be permitted to speak out of
order on a matter unrelated to the budget that should come to the
attention of the House.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Murtha was allowed to speak out of order.)
moment of silent prayer for chief of naval operations, adm. jeremy m.
boorda
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to rise and join me
in a moment of silent prayer for Admiral Boorda, who apparently either
shot himself accidentally or intentionally.
Admiral Boorda was one of the finest naval officers that I have ever
known; a person who came up through the ranks, and all of us had so
much admiration for, and who has done so much for this great country
over the years. The Navy and the country is a better place because of
his fine service, and I would ask that we would bow our heads for a
moment of prayer.
Amen.
The CHAIRMAN. A final period of general debate is now in order. The
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Sabo] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
(Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
budget resolution House Concurrent Resolution 178.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 178. It keeps us going in the right direction to
make sure that we do indeed balance the budget by the year 2002.
It is truly gratifying to see the change that has taken place in
Washington since the Republican majority was elected. The entire debate
has shifted from one of simply not letting the deficit get any bigger
to really balancing the budget. That is a fundamental change in the
culture of the Federal Government.
It is good to take stock of these things from time to time because
people forget very quickly how things used to be. They forget that
under the previous leadership of the other party, spending spiraled out
of control and it was common to refer to spending as being
``uncontrollable.''
We have proved that it was a lack of will to control spending that
lay at the heart of our deficits. And, it was the Orwellian use of
language in which spending increases were called cuts that aided the
ballooning of Federal spending. The deficits ballooned because Congress
could not control itself, not because spending could not be controlled.
Under Republican leadership, domestic discretionary spending actually
decreased for the first time in more than two decades. While we did not
reduce it as much as many of us would have liked, it was a major
accomplishment to completely change the direction of government from
growing ever larger to actually shrinking it.
Those of us who promised to work for a smaller, less intrusive
government can be very proud of what we have been able to do in such a
short time.
The budget before us today keeps us on track to getting our financial
house in order. Again, it does not go nearly as far as I would like;
but, it maintains our momentum toward the goal of a balanced budget and
the economic rewards that go with it.
The budget should be balanced as a matter of principle, but, just as
important as the principle is the economic benefits that go with it. A
2-percent drop in interest rates, which nearly all economists agree
would result from a balanced budget, means lower costs for buying a
home, a car, or a college education.
Because of that kind of economic change, individuals will be able to
do the things that they need to do to improve their lives and take care
of their families.
Our budget will make sure that the Government programs that we depend
upon will be there when we need them. Medicare is going bankrupt even
faster than we originally thought and we absolutely cannot allow that
to happen.
Our budget will allow Medicare to continue to grow; in fact, it will
be one of the fastest growing programs in the budget. But the rate of
growth will be slowed through sound policy changes that ultimately give
senior citizens greater choice and control over their own health care.
I suppose that budgets reflect the priorities that we place on things
and they say a great deal about who you trust. Our budget says that we
have heard the call of the American people for a smaller and more
responsive Government.
This budget reflects our belief that individuals can and will make
the best choices about how to run their own lives. It is a far cry from
the Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all, bigger-is-better,
``spending can't be controlled'' budgets of years past.
I encourage my colleagues to support the budget resolution and keep
America on the path to a balanced budget, more freedom and individual
responsibility.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, recently I was in Dallas, TX,
and I bought a little plaque for my office that talked about
priorities. I know it is very difficult to see this plague because I
tried to photocopy it and it is pretty difficult to see it, but here is
the message. It says: ``One hundred years from now it will not matter
what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of
car I drove, but the world may be different because I was important in
the life of a child.''
I bought that plaque because it reminds me of why I am here in
Congress. We all need to be reminded to keep our priorities in line.
Today's vote is about priorities. It is about the priority of our
Nation to live the way we expect every citizen to live, within his or
her means. This debate today is about truth, it is about honesty, it is
about our children and our grandchildren. It is about getting rid of a
$200-plus billion deficit and a $5 trillion national debt.
Over the last 30 years this city has had one heck of a party, and we
continue sending the bill to our kids and
[[Page H5247]]
our grandkids. Mr. Chairman, every night I pray that the Lord will
bless and keep my children, and I have a picture of my family here, and
every time we have this budget debate I am reminded of my
responsibility in that prayer. I have five personal reasons why I want
to balance the budget. They are Kesha, Jerrell, Jennifer, Julie and
Trey Watts.
I urge Members all to look around next Sunday when they go to their
church or they go to their synagogue or parish, and I challenge them to
go to the nursery and take a look at those nursery kids, those 2 years
old and 3 years old, and understand this as they look at them: Each of
them, each one of them, they are responsible for $18,000 of the
national debt, each of them, and they never held a job.
I urge Members to do that, and if they vote no today they have to
tell every one of those precious children they just saddled them with
an ever-deepening debt. Their life will never be as good as ours, and
in essence we have lost our priorities. I urge a ``yes'' vote for this
budget. I urge a vote for the right priorities I urge my colleagues to
remember their own reasons, their own children, and continue our
country on the path to a balanced budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just make a couple of comments and then I will yield to
others. I will try to be shorter than I was planning on.
I hear all this discussion about children. I happen to have a new
grandchild. I am a grandfather for the first time, a little over a
month ago.
{time} 1600
It is a new experience. It is nice. But I look outside today, and I
hope for the sake of my granddaughter the future is not as dreary and
bleak as the weather outside today. I tell my friends on the Republican
side that I see their budget, and I worry about it. I hope she grows up
in a world where she knows she has to pay her bills, but I also hope
she grows up with a sense of obligation and a sense of community that
is larger than simply herself or her community or her State, but it
also includes a view of the country as a whole in the world.
We have important obligations as we move forward to balance the
budget, which we should do. But we made important commitments to our
seniors in Medicare, and as we reform it and change it, as we must, we
must make certain that we do it in a rational way that is sustainable
and continues quality health care for all in this country. I fear the
Republican proposal, as in so many cases, goes too far. In Medicaid
where we deal with health care for the most vulnerable in our society,
the numbers are not that far off, but the policy is. My colleagues let
the States put billions of dollars out of the program.
I could go on in program after program where that is the case. We are
going to pass it today. I hope that we only recognize that somehow it
is a bargaining position for your side of the aisle. Ultimately I still
hope that we can come to some agreement in this session between the
Congress and the President and find a solution that is pragmatic rather
than ideologically driven so that we can move this whole country
forward. Your proposal today is not that solution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons], who served as a very distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means and, unfortunately, is leaving us at the
end of this session of Congress.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, this issue today is not about balancing
the budget. In fact, this issue that we are talking about really is a
wish list. It is not a law. It never will become law. It is just a wish
list that we put together to say that we are fulfilling our
responsibilities. But there is something wrong with this wish list.
Seventy-five percent of all the savings in this wish list come out of
children, aged, sick people's benefits. Seventy-five percent of all the
money that is saved in this wish list comes out of Medicare and
Medicaid.
In addition to that in this wish list, a horrible damage is done to
the programs that have worked successfully. All of the seniors will be
herded into managed care where they do not choose to go, have not
chosen to go, and do not need to go. Who will profit by all that? The
insurance companies, the medical doctors, and all the people who are
making such a killing out of managed care.
Second, the States will not be required to continue their efforts for
their children and their old people under Medicaid. Another horrible
cut from the welfare of those who are dependent upon us who are healthy
and well off. Then, Mr. Chairman, there is a tax cut in here, just like
there was last year, and it is here for the wealthy friends of our
Republicans.
America does not need a tax cut. The United States of America has
today the lowest tax burden of any of the 25 industrialized nations on
earth. We do need to balance our budget, but we do not need to balance
our budget at the expense of the dependent people in this society. And
we do not need to balance it for the benefit of those who can more than
pay their own way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 178,
the House budget resolution, but want to comment on the President's
budget and the other budget alternatives.
While I am pleased that the President has finally agreed on the need
to balance the budget, his plan falls short on a number of the critical
reforms that are necessary to achieve this goal. It promises a lot, but
delivers little.
In 1994, I had the opportunity to serve on the President's bipartisan
Commission on Entitlement Reform, the Kerry-Danforth Commission. For a
year the Commission heard testimony from a parade of experts on the
need to reform Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements or they
would ultimately either become insolvent or eat up virtually all our
tax dollars.
What troubles me most about the President's budget is that it does
not face up to the pressing need to address the entitlement issue.
Instead, the administration has played politics by portraying the sound
reforms to Medicare contained in the Republican budget as a threat to
seniors.
Reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and welfare are not needed simply to
balance the budget, they are needed to protect these programs for those
they serve.
I am one Member who believes that we can still achieve some major
progress toward balancing the budget this year.
While the President's budget falls short in key areas, I believe that
the coalition budget presented earlier shows that Republicans and
Democrats do not have far to go to achieve fair compromises on the most
important budget issues.
The coalition budget plan and the Republican budget are the two most
credible plans for achieving a balanced budget in 6 years. The
President's plan does not meet the critical tests necessary to achieve
a balanced budget. The President's plan is based on overly optimistic
economic assumptions and avoids most of the tough choices necessary to
balance the budget.
Mr. Chairman, today we should pass this budget resolution and then
get down to the task to producing welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare
reforms that will save these programs and save tax dollars.
These are the areas we must concentrate on in the next few months to
really make a difference in the lives of our constituents.
Members of the Blue Dog Coalition and a number of Republicans have
already demonstrated that we can work together to reform programs which
will help people and balance the budget.
Congressman John Tanner and I have introduced a bipartisan welfare
reform bill which would save $50 billion over 7 years and contains all
the key reforms necessary to move people from welfare to work.
This compromise is based on H.R. 4 conference report and the
bipartisan Governor's proposal.
It contains all the essential elements of the conference report--work
requirements; family cap; time limits; limits on benefits to teenage
mothers; paternity establishment; illegitimacy reduction; and child
support enforcement.
It builds on the Governor's plan by providing additional funding for
child care and the contingency fund to protect States from economic
downturns, but requires more State accountability.
This is the type of bipartisan effort that will lead to a balanced
budget. We need to pursue similar agreements to reform Medicaid,
Medicare and hopefully provide tax relief to the American people.
I support passage of the budget resolution and then immediate action
to pass legislation
[[Page H5248]]
to reform the key programs that will balance the budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition today to
the final budget resolution before us. Setting budget priorities is one
of the most challenging things that we have as Members of Congress to
come before us. In agreeing to a budget resolution, we are making a
series of choices, choices about the goals that Government makes,
choices about the services that citizens receive, choice about
commitments that are kept.
The good thing about today is we come to this floor together, and we
are all looking at balanced budgets. But the whole point is, how do we
get there? There is no single right way to get there. There is no one
answer. What we are talking about today are choices. I would argue that
some of the choices in the majority's budget resolution are very much
the wrong ones.
Quickly, let me just mention the choices on Medicare. We all fully
agree that we have to keep the Medicare program solvent. We have done
it before. We will do it again. But there are several policies in the
majority's budget resolution today that would, it really would make it
more difficult for seniors and at the same time does not improve the
Medicare solvency situation. Two examples: Medical savings accounts. We
could debate medical savings accounts for younger, healthier people and
probably have a very healthy good debate. We have one universal health
system in this country. Those over 65 get Medicare. If you give them a
medical savings account to choose, who is going to choose it? Of course
if you are younger, if you were healthier, you will choose it. And in
some choosing, we lose $4.6 billion in that whole choice.
More damaging still is those that are frailer and sicker stay in our
traditional Medicare which has worked, is there for over 65 and as a
result of the healthier, stronger ones going out of it, the premiums go
up for the sicker. It is what we call adverse selection. In plain
English, what it means is the premiums are going to go up.
Also, something that some of us on both sides of the aisles have
worked for for years, and that is to see that when you have Medicare
and you go to the doctor, you have a protection against increased costs
over and above Medicare. For years we fought that. I can remember going
to meetings when I was on the city council; assignment: Let us have
assignment for doctors who work their way through it so it was fair for
those on Medicare and fair for the doctors.
What is happening in the new budget resolution that we are about to
vote on? Balanced billing, they call it. It is not balanced, let me
tell you. It means the doctor can add on and you will not have a
choice.
My final thing, let me say why in heaven's name when we are all
talking about welfare reform that we are going and attacking the earned
income tax credit? Make work pay. Do not take money out of people's
pockets.
These things make it impossible to vote for this majority budget. We
really should not do what we are doing today.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House resolution,
as a grandfather, and urge passage.
My third grandchild--and second grandson--will be born soon, and as I
think of welcoming this new Hobson into the world, I can't help but
wonder what kind of future he will face. How much will prices rise
during his lifetime? Will the country still be a place of opportunity?
Will there still be a thriving economy to support his generation? When
I think about the answers to these questions, it becomes increasingly
clear to me that the best thing I can do for my new grandson is to vote
``yes'' for this budget package.
When they look back on this Congress, our own children and
grandchildren will judge us harshly if we pass up this chance, and we
continue to rob them because we do not have the backbone to control our
spending in this Chamber. Every time we deficit spend we are refusing
to take responsibility for our actions.
Many constituents I've talked to have had concerns about specific
programs they benefit from, but without fail, they also remind me to
follow through with the promise to balance the budget. People are
willing to accept the changes necessary to preserve our country's
fiscal security, but they want us to make sure that what we do is fair,
and that we follow through on our commitment to balance the budget.
We're a year into the balanced budget mission, and the sky has not
fallen like some said it would. In fact, we all know that the sky will
continue to brighten the closer we get to 2002 and to balance.
I know there are many here today whose parochial interests lead them
to declare this plan unfair. To those people I ask them to consider
this: is it fair to take the money and future and opportunity from
generations of Americans who aren't even born yet? That's what we do
when we deficit spend and run up the debt. Someone pays and it isn't
those of us in this room, it is our children and grandchildren who
trust us to look out for them.
Protect our children's and grandchildren's future and shift power,
money and influence out of Washington and back to Americans: pass the
1997 budget resolution.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, as I ask for opposition to the majority
budget proposal, it is with the understanding and the true belief that
all of us in this House are really looking for a better America, a more
prosperous America, an improvement in the quality of life for all of
our citizens.
Not too long ago when President Clinton spoke to both Houses, there
were a lot of people that reported that he sounded so Republican, that
he had stolen every idea that only the genius of the party labeled The
Grand Old Party could have. I rather thought that that was a message in
saying that we all have the same objectives.
We truly would like to have a smaller Government, that we would want
to reduce taxes on our constituents and even our own, for that matter;
that we are concerned with being able to say that during the time that
we were in the Congress, we indeed improved the quality of life. That
happened whether we were Republican or whether we were Democrats.
I think that next to feeling good about being American, the next good
feeling that we have in our country is the dignity and the pride of
having a job. You have had to know unemployment, you have had to know
the pain of looking at your family in the face, looking at your kids
and somehow explaining why that American dream is not yours to share
in. You have to understand, even if you had a good job and for some
reason you lost a job, they downsized, they merged, how do you explain
to your kids and to your family that America is doing much better,
trade is expanding, but somehow you got caught in the cracks?
I suggest when Members look at this budget, instead of the rhetoric
about wiping out the Department of Education and wiping out the
Department of Commerce, we should say we are going to increase
education. If they are not doing the job, we have got to restructure
it. Instead of talking about wiping out the Department of Commerce, we
are going to say we are going to expand world trade, we have exhausted
European and domestic markets.
While we are talking about this and while we are willing to make
available moneys for research and development, when do we start talking
about training people, giving them access to education, not cutting
student loans, not cutting back on education and job training? Saying
everybody in this country is going to be able to work, is going to be
able to stand up and say that they are going to take care of their
family and they will never allow welfare to compete for the hearts of
their children and the mother of those children because they have the
dignity to work.
That is what the earned income tax credit was all about. It was
saying if you are working every day, black or white, Jew or gentile,
and at the end of the year you end up below the poverty level, that we
are not going to advocate that you make the salary of a Member of
Congress, but we will give you something to bring you to the dignity of
working and being above poverty.
[[Page H5249]]
So we cut out education, we cut out the job training, and we have the
audacity to cut out giving a hand to people who refuse to be on welfare
but want to work each and every day with just a little help. When we
start thinking about what we are not doing to put people to work in
terms of education and job training, when last have we ever heard on
this floor that we are spending too much money on our jails? When have
we ever heard that mandatory sentences mean more taxpayers' money
spent?
Why in the city of New York, we have a detention center that costs
$60,000 a year to keep a bum kid in, and that is before he is
convicted. Yet the fight is between the mayor and the Governor and this
Congress as to whether $6,000 a year is enough. So you kick them out of
school, you put them in the streets and we end up with drugs, with
violence, and with jail.
A greater America is a working America, a stronger educated America,
and we just made the wrong cuts for this great Republic.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget reminds me of a
movie I saw a few years ago called ``Groundhog Day.'' In the movie,
Bill Murray, who is the star, keeps reliving the same day over and over
again. Everything happens to him the same way.
This budget, which has been advertised as a real change, when you
examine it, when you open the package that has been repackaged, is
really the same thing. It is said to be a moderate budget. It is not a
moderate budget. It is warmed over tax cuts for the wealthy, rehashed
cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, reconstituted cuts in education and the
environment.
For 17 months, the President, the Democrats have been waiting for the
Republicans to come to the sensible center so that we could get a
budget done. The Republicans have been offered a balanced budget plan
made up entirely of cuts that the Republicans support, but it is never
good enough. We cannot seem to get the compromise, the consensus that
we need to get this done.
{time} 1615
This budget still raises taxes.
Now listen to this. I said it in the last budget debate:
This budget raises taxes on working people who are at the bottom,
trying to get in the middle class, while it cuts dramatically taxes on
capital gains, most of which goes to the wealthiest Americans. How can
anyone argue that this is fair, that this is sensible, that this is
pragmatic, that this is what we ought to be doing in this country?
It still cuts Medicare and Medicaid way too much. That would not have
to be done if we simply gave up the tax break for the wealthiest
Americans, if we just focus the tax break on middle-income people and
people trying to get in the middle class. We would not need as deep a
cut in Medicare and Medicaid and in education.
And then if we look at the list that comes out of discretionary
spending, it is too long for me to read this afternoon. Job training in
vocational education, cut by more than $1 billion; national direct
student loans, eliminated entirely; libraries across the country cut by
one-fifth; 24 education programs eliminated entirely; Institutes for
Occupational Safety and Health, gone; rural housing eliminated; rural
health, gone; agricultural extension and research, gone.
The list goes on. I could read it all afternoon.
These are efforts that everybody could agree are good for the future
of this country that only, only the government will perform if this
country is to move forward.
Now let me end with this:
This budget for the second year in a row is not going to happen. The
President will veto the implementation of this budget, and what I
cannot understand, my friends in the Republican Party, we now have 2
years of no progress.
I know my colleagues did not like the President's budget in 1993, but
it cut the deficit in half, and most importantly, it got done.
This country is not a parliamentary system. Our colleagues cannot do
it their way alone. They have to come to the middle, and we have to
find a compromise to move this country forward. if our colleagues
continue being obstinate and resolute in wanting to do it their way or
no way, we get nothing done for the American people.
Let us vote this budget down, let us get a budget back on this floor
that is somewhere out here in the middle that everybody in this body
can support, and let us get this deficit down and balance this budget
as we should have done a long time ago.
This budget will not live. Let us find a budget that will.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we have had enormous progress. The
simple fact of the matter is that in the area of Washington spending
the spending that we are responsible for year to year, that if we do
not even come to work, of course, entitlements keep going up, but on
that spending that the President was forced to deal with, we had the
most massive amount of change in 50 years. We saved a net amount of
dollars of 30 billion, the most amount of savings, the most amount of
shrinking of Government in 50 years.
As George Will told me, ``Historians were wrong, John. Historians
were wrong. They said government never shrunk. You proved that it can,
in fact, shrink.'' And the savings of that $23 billion came, it came
because we had principle. We did not cave, We stood up for what we
believed in. We are standing up for this country. We are standing up
for the power of the individual and a smaller Federal Government into
the next century.
But let me tell you about the three reasons why we do this budget.
One is the children. Everyone in this Chamber cares about the kids.
That is why we all talk about them. We are about preserving America's
greatest legacy. It is simple: ``Your children will be better off than
you were.'' It is the legacy that we got from our parents.
I look across this Chamber, and I look at a great man, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Rangel], a hero of the Korean war. Never in his
wildest dreams did he ever think that he would get to be a very senior
and respected spokesman on the Committee of Ways and Means. And I look
across the aisle here. We got a professional football player who
struggled his way up and made the big time and then came to Congress
because he had a vision.
I mean, all we are saying is that every child, and everybody agrees
with this, every child deserves a legacy and an opportunity for them to
be able to live their dreams, and we cannot give them that if we keep
spending money we do not have. We know it. We do not want to send them
to work where the message is that they are going to work longer and
harder for somebody else to pay somebody else's bills. We do not want
to strangle them with a big government that can choke them off in
overregulation and things that do not make common sense.
So, No. 1, our principles are driven by children, the next
generation. As my colleagues know, it is right out of the Bible. One of
the most important principles is the other person is more important
than we are. Well, we think that this country is more important than
us; and, second, we believe our children and the next generation,
frankly, are more important than we are. So we do it for the children.
But as Eunice Kennedy said to me one night, she said, ``You know I
understand your love for the children. That's about what you're going
to do tomorrow. What about today?'' She said, ``You have to explain
what you're going to do today,'' and she made a fair point, and I want
to say to my friend from New York, when we talk about jobs, when we
talk about job insecurity, when we talk about wages, let us just look
at the facts. We got a candidate in our party, we had an independent
candidate, and we are going to hear about job insecurity and wage
stagnation until we solve it, and we should, because mothers and
fathers are working longer and harder and they are getting stuck. Too
many families are stuck. They are not getting ahead.
I understand it. I come from a family where we had to work like crazy
to get ahead. I understand the problem.
[[Page H5250]]
Where does it come from? The simple fact of the matter is, if a
country does not save, it cannot invest. If a family does not save, it
cannot invest, it cannot invest in its children, it cannot invest in
its home, it cannot invest in transportation. If a nation does not
save, it cannot invest, and America has the lowest savings rate of any
modern industrialized nation on the face of the Earth. We punish people
for saving, and not only do we punish them for saving, but we make it
difficult for them to have anything left after they get their wages
because government at all levels has taken too much from them. So,
first of all, they do not have anything left, and the few crumbs they
have left, they cannot save because if they save, they get penalized on
their income tax statement because they saved. It is crazy.
This Nation needs to save. We need to provide reasons to save for our
future because, if we save, we can invest, and if we can invest, we can
improve productivity. That is an economic term. But what does it really
mean? It means putting tools in the hands of American workers that
allow them to compete and win with workers all around the world.
Intel in New Mexico, I believe, is the highest-paying job one can get
in New Mexico. I say to my colleagues you do not work for Intel; you
know why? Because the whole world wants the magic of the computer. And
so their workers are paid a premium wage, their jobs are secure.
America needs to pursue a policy that saves and invests and takes
risks and rewards risks and helps our people win. That is what our
budget does by rewarding risk-taking and savings and investment and
opportunity.
And third, the point maybe on which we most disagree because I am not
so sure we disagree on the first two, how do we make this
transformation? My colleagues, what we are about over here is we are
about the power of the individual and we are not about the power of
Washington bureaucracy. We are for systematically taking power, money
and influence from this city and sending it home, and that does not
mean that what we have done for the last 30 years or 40 years had not
been good. It has been good. Thank God we created Medicare, thank God
the Federal Government got involved in many of the issues they got
involved with. But, frankly, we are not getting the results from here
any more. We will not solve the problems on crime on the streets of Los
Angeles from Washington. The only people that can solve the problems of
crime in Los Angeles are people who live in the neighborhoods of Los
Angeles. They need to be empowered.
Children are not going to learn because we are calling a bureaucrat
in Washington to figure out whether our kids are getting educated.
Mothers and fathers across this great country of ours, they are the
ones that can make the assessment, they are the ones that have to work
with the teachers in the school houses to determine whether their
children are winning or not. We do not believe that the answer lies
here.
Job training; oh, come on, 120 Federal job training programs. I do
not advise anybody to leave their job and think that Washington is
going to retrain them. How are we going to do it? We are going to put
an incentive in the hands of a business. The business is going to call
somebody who does not have a skill. The business is going to train that
person for an incentive, and then they are going to hire them for a
real, permanent, high-paying job. That is how we do job training.
So I say our vision is get the pendulum, move the pendulum back, get
the power and the money and the influence out of this city, back home
where we can have local solutions for local problems at less cost
because I will just suggest to my colleagues, in closing, the 21st
century is about the century of the power of the individual, not the
century of the power of government. It is about giving individuals the
tools that we have created in this economy that can make us the most
powerful people in the history of the world, and we mean to take the
first big step toward guaranteeing a bright and beautiful and
opportunistic, an opportunity society, for everyone into the 21st
century.
Pass the resolution. It is a giant first step toward saving our
children, toward providing for better jobs and empowering individuals
as we fly into the 21st century.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, while I am in support of the budget
resolution before the House today I do want to alert Members to a
serious issue. I believe that this is no time to back away from
aggressive trade policies. We need all the tools available in a post-
NAFTA and post-GATT world to ensure that our farmers can fairly compete
in world agriculture trade. There are programs that help American
farmers and one of them is Public Law 480. This program helps countries
become our trading partners of the future.
We need to strengthen Public Law 480 and integrate it into an
aggressive trade strategy to make us more competitive. The 1996 farm
bill made significant changes to Public Law 480 to improve the program.
For example, South Korea was a former Public Law 480 recipient. Now
South Korea is the fifth largest market for United States agriculture
goods. We sell over $2 billion in agriculture products to South Korea
each year.
Countries now receiving title I assistance include Lithuania and
Ukraine, countries that will be our future cash trading partners.
I do not believe we should turn our backs on the farmers and ranchers
of America. We need all the trading partners we can get--or the
European union will take over all agriculture exports in the world.
Title I, the concessional agriculture sales program and title III,
food grants to promote economic development, of Public Law 480 are
important programs and it is my intention during the appropriations
process to work to make sure funding is provided for the Food for Peace
Program.
The Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign
Agriculture, of which I am the chairman, worked very hard to improve
this program and will continue its work to ensure adequate funding for
the Food for Peace Program.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution for the fiscal year
1997, brought to the floor under the leadership of Chairman Kasich and
the Budget Committee, continues our payments on a balanced budget by
the year 2002. It is an important step forward for the Congress and for
the American people, and one I wholeheartedly support.
In the report to accompany the budget resolution, the Budget
Committee makes a number of specific suggestions on cuts in both
discretionary and mandatory spending. Their suggestions look both at
the fundamental purpose of American Government, and to areas where--
when there is a legitimate governmental function--we can eliminate
waste, bureaucracy, and duplication.
While I generally agree with most of the suggestions made by the
Budget Committee in its report, as the chairman of the subcommittee
with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission, I was disappointed
to see that they targeted this agency for elimination. My subcommittee
will be taking up reauthorizing legislation for the agency within the
next month or two, and while the subcommittee will continue to review
the FTC's operations with a critical eye, I believe that this is an
important agency and one which should continue to be funded.
The FTC has often demonstrated its commitment and competence in
protecting American consumers. Both in its recent rejection of the
Rite-Aid/Revco merger and the ``Senior Sentinel'' sweep designed to
root out telemarketing fraud, the agency has acquitted itself admirably
in meeting its mission. While we realize that this agency had a number
of problems in the 1970's and early 1980's, it has put many of those
problems behind it and manages to accomplish its goals with a minimum
of public resources.
Further, the FTC provides a good return on the public's investment.
The agency is nearly 70 percent funded by fees generated from corporate
mergers. It regularly reviews old rules and discards those that are
obsolete or no longer necessary to prevent fraud or unfair trade
practices. When I look at the FTC, I believe that it is the model of
what a regulatory agency should be, efficient, fair, and flexible.
My subcommittee will be looking closely at the FTC over the next few
months and we will look for areas where the agency can be even more
efficient and meet its statutory duties at a lower cost. However,
eliminating the FTC would, in the end, wind up costing Americans far
more in increased commercial fraud and bureaucratic waste than would be
saved. I believe that this agency should continue to perform its
mission and I will support efforts to see that it is able to do so.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, once again, the House will pass a
balanced budget resolution and will continue to keep its promises to
all Americans. I am proud to say my colleagues on the Budget Committee
and I have been able to continue our commitment to saving our
children's future and providing for our seniors. This budget plan--the
only plan to
[[Page H5251]]
balance the Federal budget while providing much needed tax relief,
promotes growth, strengthens the Nation's defense, and ends the
practice of runaway spending.
But above all, the Republican budget shifts money and power from
Washington bureaucrats and back into the hands of people. Under our
plan, Americans will earn more and keep more of their money, as we
release our Nation's children from the burden of our debt.
This budget addresses Medicare's impending bankruptcy by
strengthening and improving the program. It expands benefits for senior
citizens by extending the Hospital Insurance Program through the year
2008, 3 years beyond the President's plan. We also recommend increasing
Medicare spending for each beneficiary from an average of $5,200 in
1996 to $7,000 in 2002. And, contrary to the demagoguery by many
willing to accept the status quo and stand idly by while Medicare burns
its last flames, overall spending increases by 59 percent between now
and 2002.
With this budget, my colleagues and I have ended the old Washington
formula that measures compassion by the number of bureaucrats on the
government payroll. We maintain the current level of funding for
LIHEAP, Education for the Disadvantaged, the Drug Free Schools Program.
In addition, student loan volume will increase from $26.6 to $37.4
billion.
While the President talked about reforming welfare, and indeed
campaigned on this very pledge, the only thing he has done on the issue
is veto real reform, reform which he once championed. So once again, we
help the President keep his promise to the American people by reforming
the ineffective aspects, while maintaining the safety net for
underprivileged Americans. Over the next 6 years, welfare spending will
increase from $83.2 billion in 1996 to $105.5 billion in 2002.
And we do all this while rolling back the Clinton tax increase of
1993. We balance the budget, insure our national defense and protect
our children's future. It's what the American people asked for in 1994,
it's what Republicans said they would do and it's the right way to
restore prosperity for all Americans.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution,
clearly the best and most responsible of the proposals we consider here
today.
First and foremost, it draws a philosophical difference that
fundamentally sets it apart from any of the alternatives--the Black
Caucus and coalition budgets as well as the President's proposal: It
seeks to shift power, money and influence out of Washington and back
into the hands of the American people where it belongs. None of the
other proposals can say that--each of them raises more revenue and
keeps more of it at the Federal level.
It also includes responsible tax cuts, and I emphasize the word
``responsible.'' I categorically reject the claim that this budget
resolution cuts taxes at the expense of the poor and elderly. First,
the tax cuts are needed to balance the budget. Let me say that again--
the tax cuts are needed to balance the budget. Why is this? Because
whenever we have decreased tax rates in the past, receipts have gone
up. Cutting rates means less tax sheltering and this means more
revenue. By also controlling spending--and this legislation includes
130 Federal program terminations--we can live within our means.
Furthermore, the social safety net programs in the Federal budget
will be increased under this budget resolution. Medicare, Medicaid,
education spending--all go up. These programs are not being cut to
provide tax cuts for the wealthy--it just isn't true. Reforms that are
included are necessary to save the programs.
The President's own advisors have told the Congress that some of
these programs are in very real danger of going bankrupt unless reforms
are made now. We simply must face this very real problem now, or very
quickly it will grow beyond our ability to control it.
We can debate the size and shape of these reforms--I myself have
questions about this--and as chairman of the Health Subcommittee, I
will be active in this debate, but this budget resolution is simply a
blueprint. It is a general guideline to set the tone for the budget
debate to come. It is the beginning of the process, not the end.
This guideline sets a responsible tone, it provides tax relief for
America's families without endangering support programs for our
Nation's elderly and veterans, it puts more money into the hands of the
people and cuts the size of the Federal Government.
I urge support for the resolution.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 178 and to express my particular support for the
veterans provisions in the bill. As chairman of the Veterans
Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension, Insurance and Memorial Affairs.
I am very pleased that the Budget Committee has been able to craft a
bill that will allow us to make improvements in several areas of
veterans benefits, while at the same time moving us further toward a
balanced budget.
During a recent hearing, several veterans groups expressed their
support for using the savings from legislation overturning the Court of
Veterans Appeals decision, Davenport versus Brown to improve veterans
benefits. The benefits improvements contained in House Concurrent
Resolution 178 do just that, and I thank the committee for their
foresight and patriotism.
This is a good bill for veterans. First it will increase total VA
outlays from $37.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $39.9 billion in
fiscal year 2002. Over the next 6 years, VA spending would total $233.3
billion which is $18.7 billion more than over the previous 6 years.
This year, our budget provides $100 million more for VA medical care
than requested by the President, and $5 billion more than the President
over the next 6 years.
For our older veterans, it strengthens the solvency of the Medicare
Program and provides a 45-percent increase in spending for Medicare.
Our middle-aged veterans will benefit through lower taxes and increased
buying power. Their families will see increased education and
entrepreneurial opportunities, and less government. Younger veterans
will see a permanent $500 per child tax credit, an adoption tax credit,
a repeal of the 1993 gasoline tax and improvements in health insurance
and medical savings accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that in testimony before the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, VA Secretary Jesse Brown stated, ``the
President's budget would be devastating for the VA.'' The Secretary
also said that the President's budget would close the equivalent of 41
hospitals, fire 60,000 employees, and deny care to as many as 1 million
veterans.
Further, when confronted with the facts regarding the President's
budget for the VA, the Secretary likes to make a point that the
President has agreed to negotiate the VA budget every year. Well,
that's not good enough for me. If the President is such a strong
supporter of veterans, let him put the money up front. Veterans
benefits should not be negotiated.
As I mentioned earlier, our bill improves several areas of veterans
benefits. First, to help our severely disabled veterans, we are
proposing to raise the one time automobile allowance from the current
$5,500 to $10,000. That will make it easier for veterans who have lost
the use of their limbs or sight to more easily afford transportation.
Second, we have included legislation to extend compensation benefits
to the day of death of a veteran. This may seem a small matter, but it
is significant to bereaved spouses of veterans.
Third, we are going to extend the period for which a surviving spouse
can receive back benefits from the current 1 to a maximum of 2 years.
This will partly make up for increased adjudication time at the VA
which is now running about 3 years for a claim to be decided at the
Board of Veterans' Appeals.
We want to reward our veteran college students with an increase in
their GI bill benefits by giving those who have a ``B'' average going
into their senior year a scholarship. We also intend to provide an
opportunity for those still on active duty to transfer from the less
generous Post Vietnam Education Assistance Program [VEAP] to the
current Montgomery GI bill. We'll also make it easier for veterans to
become teachers by making permanent the ability to use their GI bill
education benefits to pay for teaching certification.
Finally, we are going to continue funding for the veterans pro bono
legal representation program at the Court of Veterans Appeals. This
program ensures that needy veterans with good cases are represented
before the court. The program also assists the court by reducing the
number of pro se cases before the court thereby reducing the time it
takes the court to process claims.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for veterans to compare the budgets
before us today and decide for themselves whose budget is best for
veterans and the Nation. I urge them to contact their elected officials
and express their support for the bill.
To my colleagues I say support House Concurrent Resolution 178
because by doing so, you support America's veterans and ensure the
economic security of the Nation.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. The new Republican
budget is nothing more than a rehash of the same extremist priorities
from last year--including large tax breaks for the wealthy paid for by
deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. House Concurrent Resolution 178
also includes misguided cuts in education funding, unneeded boosts in
defense spending and tax increases on 6 million hard working American
families. There is no doubt that spending in certain areas can be
reduced and programs can be reformed, particularly in the area of
health care, but this budget goes too far.
Mr. Speaker, the majority refuses to abandon the most outrageous part
of their budget--unnecessary cuts in Medicare to finance tax breaks for
the wealthy. This budget cuts
[[Page H5252]]
$168 billion from the Medicare Program--$124 billion from part A and
$44 billion from part B. This plan sacrifices the quality and
availability of senior's health care for a tax giveaway, which
primarily benefits people making over $100,000 a year. The impact on
senior citizens and hospitals is even more devastating than the cuts
proposed last year.
House Concurrent Resolution 178 puts the squeeze on hospitals,
through deep cuts in the part of Medicare that pays hospital bills.
These cuts could force many hospitals to close or reduce the services
they now offer to their communities. Regardless of inflation, hospitals
would get less than they do today in nominal dollars under this budget.
In Philadelphia, our health care system and entire economy will be
endangered by these insidious cuts. Many hospitals in my district,
whose beneficiaries are predominantly Medicare and Medicaid patients,
may have no alternative but to shut their doors.
Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 contains the same
damaging structural changes to Medicare and Medicaid the President
vetoed last year. It continues to rely on the untested and dangerous
medical savings accounts as its centerpiece. The majority proposal
would segment the Medicare population, leaving the traditional program
with fewer dollars and a sicker pool of beneficiaries. It would drive
up premiums and causing Medicare to wither on the vine. This proposal
is of extreme significance to my district, the 20th oldest in the
Nation. More than 100,000 senior citizens in my district rely on
Medicare and they live on fixed incomes. This proposal could truly end
universal health coverage for elderly, effectively reversing 30 years
of progress.
Mr. Speaker, the majority tries to hide its true intentions behind
lofty rhetoric abut saving Medicare for the future. House Concurrent
Resolution 178 extends Medicare's solvency for the same number of years
as the President's plan--yet the GOP plan takes $44 billion more from
Medicare. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the majority is using funds
cut from Medicare to pay for their crown jewel--a $176 billion tax cut
for wealthy Americans.
In addition, the majority is still insisting on ending the Medicaid
guarantee for 36 million Americans, including millions of senior
citizens and children. Mr. Speaker, approximately 400,000 people in
Philadelphia rely on Medicaid as their only source of health care.
Without that guarantee, families will be forced to sell their homes to
pay for nursing homes for their elderly parents. This budget cuts
Federal medical spending by $72 billion, but the total cuts could still
reach $250 billion over 7 years if States spend only the minimum
required to receive their full block grant allocation. This potential
$250 billion cut reduces spending growth per person below the general
rate of inflation. Deep total cuts in Medicaid could place older
Americans and people with disabilities at risk of losing optional
Medicaid benefits. These cuts would place an additional financial
burden on families caring for their parents and others with long-term
care needs. In addition, the majority still insist on repealing Federal
enforcement of nursing home quality standards that have dramatically
improved the quality of nursing home care.
Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 also would raise taxes
on between 6 and 10 million hard working American families by cutting
the earned income tax credit program. The earned income tax credit
benefited 40 million Americans in working families and has been proven
to help people move off welfare. In addition, this budget continues the
assault on educational opportunities for our Nation's young people by
cutting more than $4.5 billion in educational assistance over the next
6 years. The Republican majority has proposed to eliminate the direct
student lending program, which provides educational assistance to over
2.5 million students nationwide, as well as the Goals 2000 Program, and
the State Incentive Grants Program.
We cannot afford to slam the door of educational assistance on our
young people nor rob our senior citizens of their right to adequate
health care. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we should continue on the path to
balance with a bipartisan budget that rejects the radical policies
contained in this budget and moves forward with a plan that truly
reflects the values of mainstream America.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 House budget resolution. Like the
Republican Majority's budget proposals of last year, this measure sets
the course for a balanced Federal budget for the first time in a
generation. For nearly three decades, the Federal Government has
recklessly overspent, accumulating a national debt of $5 trillion. This
year, the interest on that debt will reach $344 billion. A child born
today inherits a tax bill of $187,746 just to pay for their share of
that interest. At this point, it does not matter who is to blame. What
does matter is that we reverse this dangerous course before it is too
late.
House Concurrent Resolution 178 is a budget plan which will give our
children a future that promises economic opportunity and prosperity.
This 6-year budget plan envisions a smaller, less intrusive Federal
Government. Downsizing will be accomplished by eliminating wasteful or
duplicative programs, sharing more power with States and local
communities, and lessening the burden of taxation and regulation which
has a stranglehold on our Nation's families and businesses. While House
Concurrent Resolution 178 would reduce Federal spending by
approximately $700 billion over the next 6 years, overall Federal
spending would still increase 3 percent annually during this period,
rather than near 5 percent annual spending growth under current law.
House Concurrent Resolution 178 is not a perfect resolution. The
House Budget Committee has presented recommendations of programmatic
changes which can be implemented to achieve a balanced budget. The
Budget Committee's illustrative cuts and reforms, however, include some
suggestions which I find objectionable. Specifically, these include the
elimination of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the corporatization
of its national laboratories. I have written the chairman of the Budget
Committee regarding these provisions, where savings yielded are
questionable at best. Furthermore, I plan to be very active in the
debate should the House consider related legislation.
Mr. Chairman, although I have these concerns about the budget plan's
energy-related provisions, House Concurrent Resolution 178 has many
more positives than negatives. I would also note that the
recommendations in this plan are nonbinding; to be implemented, each
recommendation must be considered through the Committee process,
adopted by both Houses of Congress, and signed into law by the
President.
Time and time again, the President and the Democrats in Congress have
disregarded the call from around the country for fiscal responsibility;
instead, they seem intent on being dragged kicking and screaming into
the 21st century. The Republican budget plan is a credible approach
toward eliminating the budget deficit and revitalizing our economic and
budget outlook today and in years to come. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of
my colleagues to support this most important measure and its underlying
goal of a balanced Federal budget.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican
budget proposal we have before us today. This is a proposal which shows
that the Republicans have not learned from last year's budget debate.
Last year, when the Republican proposals came to light, the American
people overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the extreme policies of
cutting health care for the elderly, gutting environmental protection,
and cutting such crucial investments as education, in order to provide
massive tax breaks and increase defense spending. It was not just the
dollars cut from the programs, the Gingrich/Dole budget also
fundamentally changed these programs, reneging on the basic assurances
of health care, education and work opportunities, and devastating the
environment.
I support responsible spending reductions and statistics show that
the budget downpayment accomplished during 1993 and 1994 by Congress
and the President has paid off in terms of really reducing the deficit.
That downpayment has led to the lowest deficit level since the Carter
administration. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports that the
deficit for fiscal year 1996, when measured against the size of the
economy, will be 1.9 percent of the GDP, the lowest level since 1979!
The numbers also show that it is the first time the deficit will have
dropped 4 years in a row since President Truman was in office.
The deficit is too high, but we have made progress. Now the
congressional Republicans want to waste that hard work with tax breaks
for short term political gain and platitudes of spending cuts way down
the road. It is largely because of improved economic figures and the
fact that their budget window is now 6 years instead of 7, that the
Republicans come to us today with cuts which they claim are more
moderate than last year's budget proposal. But although their numbers
appear more moderate, the GOP/Gingrich core policy proposals are still
drastic, with skewed priorities for our Nation's future.
The Gingrich budget plan once again relies on massive cuts in
Medicare and Medicaid programs which help over 70 million Americans
gain access to health insurance. It is clear that there are serious
problems with our current health care system. Congress should be acting
to expand health care coverage and rein in escalating health care
costs, but instead, Republicans are focused on tearing our Nation's
health safety net, potentially adding millions more to the ranks of the
uninsured. The plan puts Federal health care on a defined contribution
basis, not the existing assurance of health care to those who need it.
The Republican Medicare plan continues to include the same
policy proposals as last
[[Page H5253]]
year's plan, drastically cutting payments to providers, restructuring
the current program and heavily relying on untested medical savings
accounts. Once again, although changes are needed in the Medicare Part
A Program to extend solvency, the Republican plan goes too far,
changing Medicare from reliable health insurance for our seniors to a
second-class health care system. The claim of solvency is only a
pretext for the out-of-context policy the GOP pursues.
Perhaps even more damaging than the Medicare cuts are the cuts and
program changes planned for Medicaid. Medicaid provides health benefits
to 36 million Americans, including 443,000 Minnesotans. Under the
Republican plan, the seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income
families who receive help from Medicaid, will be at risk of losing
their coverage. In addition, States will be allowed to reduce their own
share of funding for Medicaid, making the actual cuts much more severe
than they appear in the resolution. Again, it is important to note that
Federal defined contribution plans will not provide the defined
benefits that many rely upon each and every day.
As we head into the 21st century, one of the most important
investments our Nation should make is in education. Republicans once
again want to make the same extreme cuts as in last year's resolution.
The budget hits students who need help with higher education costs by
eliminating the Direct Loan Program, and eliminating new funding for
Perkins loans and State student incentive grants. The budget makes a
host of other education cuts, such as eliminating Goals 2000, bilingual
education, and immigrant education programs. Further, the proposal
slashes funding for job training, such as the programs consolidated in
the CAREERS bill. This budget resolution goes too far by cutting these
programs 28 percent below the levels in the CAREERS bill, which already
cut the programs by 20 percent. Alas, it becomes clear that the goal of
consolidation is the justification to shrink the block grant programs.
Pretending that efficiency will make up 45-percent cuts in programs
doesn't hold up to commonsense evaluation.
On the environmental front, the budget resolution calls for a 26-
percent cut in natural resources programs by 2002. Even as we see more
and more visitors to national parks and more public interest in
protecting and enjoying our national heritage, the Republicans want to
slash Federal protection of these resources. We all know that
effectively protecting resources is expensive and that if we want to
truly protect our environment, we have to allocate sufficient funding.
The funding level in this budget resolution simply will not adequately
protect our environment for future generations. In addition, the
Republican budget blueprint once again advocates destroying forever the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] by permitting oil and gas
exploration and drilling. ANWR is the last great piece of American
wilderness, and opening the refuge area to drilling will assure
destruction of this priceless and irreplaceable treasure.
The budget blueprint contains negative policies which harm long-
standing labor laws that protect American men and women, such as
repealing the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, and gutting
OSHA. Under Republican policies, fair treatment for working families
would be jettisoned and corporate management would set the rules
without adequate safeguards or monitoring.
Another area which merits concern are the cuts in housing and
community and regional development. Continuing to cut housing when it
has already been targeted for cuts in the past is pouring salt on the
wounds of those most in need. In addition, the community development
programs of CDBG and CDFI have their administration merged with the
HOME program and transferred to States and local governments,
accompanied by severe budget cuts. Again the block grants are given
short shrift. How can this majority Republican Congress advance more
block grants when it reneges on the basic tenet?
In fact, the treatment of community development in this budget
resolution shows the danger of turning programs into block grants--
underfunding. Block grants and ceding control of programs to the States
have been the mantra of this new Republican majority. However, as the
budget belt tightens, Republicans seek cuts to the block grants,
leaving State and local governments with all the flexibility, but with
no funding to administer the programs or provide the services. This
should serve as a warning to all those who advocate block grants as the
answer for every problem.
This GOP budget recommends a 50-percent cut in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program. Areas that are cut from funding no doubt will not
find affordable insurance and when the damage occurs the Congress will
reply with 100 percent Federal assistance. This is the final analysis:
It will not save money, it will cost Federal taxpayers, and create
political gamesmanship and more uncertainty. The GOP budget calls for
$312 billion in unspecified domestic discretionary spending in the next
6 years, meaning that the cuts already illustrated would be eclipsed by
yet more savage slashes in future years. However, some sacrosanct pet
programs are spared. Even while funding cuts and negative policy
changes are proposed for health care, education, infrastructure, the
environment, and community development, the Republican's plan proposes
an increase in 1997 defense spending of $12 billion over the Pentagon's
budget request. Most of this new spending goes to unrequested weapons
systems, including a host of new planes, helicopters, submarines, and
ships, above what is necessary for our national defense. The irony of
these budget priorities is that the United States will enter the next
century with more smart weapons systems, but fewer smart soldiers to
operate these sophisticated weapons systems.
We can continue to responsibly reduce the deficit, and proposals have
been put forth to show that we can do it in a fair manner. The
Republicans make the task of deficit reduction a political sham by
insisting on including tax breaks of $124 to $175 billion in their
budget plans. The amount that the Republicans project for the cost of
the one tax item is $124 billion and is not sufficient to pay for their
additional proposed tax break policies, meaning that the cost of the
tax changes will be much higher when the entire policies are in place.
The tax policies in the resolution do not reflect fairness, as the
measure greatly reduces the earned income tax credit for the working
poor while making low-income families ineligible for the new children's
tax credit. The children's tax credit will not benefit 34 percent of
the Nation's children because their parents' income is so low that the
nonreimbursement tax credit policy denies the child credit for low
income families. In addition, the Gingrich/GOP plan leaves the option
open for a capital gains tax break, a proven budget buster. Instead of
including these unfair tax policies in their plan, Republicans should
use these funds to moderate the cuts in other programs.
During the past year, the Republican majority has consistently shown
that they do not value programs or protections for American working
families and seniors, ranging from affordable health care and a clean
environment, to quality education and a livable wage. Unfortunately, as
this fiscal year 1997 budget proposal shows, they have not been
listening to the consistent and concerned response of the American
people, which has been opposition to the Republicans' extreme actions.
The American people understand that in pursuit of fiscal and deficit
balance, we should not accept human deficit and social imbalance. The
people expect shared sacrifice, not the Gingrich cuts for people
programs and tax breaks for the rich, the policy that the GOP is intent
on advancing. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget
resolution.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. It was just about a year
ago that we stood here on the House floor, debating the Republican plan
to balance the Federal budget.
By now, we are all familiar with what happened in that debate. In
response to our attempt to balance the budget, Republicans were
confronted with one of the most savage political attacks in the history
of this country.
We were called ``mean-spirited'', ``uncaring'', and ``extremist''.
The American people were told that we didn't care about old people and
that we wanted to starve innocent children. All of this despite the
fact that our budget actually increased spending on Medicaid, Medicare,
school lunches, student loans, and other programs that help the most
vulnerable in our society.
Fortunately, the Republican Congress weathered these desperate
attacks and fulfilled its promise to pass a balanced budget bill.
Unfortunately, President Clinton's veto made all of our efforts go for
naught.
But, as they say, ``if you don't succeed, try, try again''--and that
is exactly what we are doing. Today, we are considering another bill
that lays our a concrete plan to balance the Federal budget by 2002.
Before I talk about some of the specifics of our proposal, I would
like to say a few words about why we will not give up on our efforts to
balance the Federal budget.
The reason we are back on the floor today, trying to balance the
budget, is simple. If we do not get Federal spending under control, we
risk leaving our children and grandchildren with a mountain of Federal
debt that will never be able to be repaid.
If we do nothing, our children will face a country with higher
interest rates, lower economic growth, and fewer jobs than there would
be under a balanced budget.
If we do nothing, the safety net that supports the poor, the elderly,
and the disadvantaged will collapse under the sheer weight of
Government debt.
My Democratic colleagues accuse us of lacking compassion, but I say
to them: How compassionate is it to borrow from our children and leave
them to pay the bills?
How compassionate is it to allow the Federal safety net to collapse
because of our unwillingness to do what needs to be done?
[[Page H5254]]
How compassionate is it to duck the hard choices, just to make things
more difficult for those who come after us?
The answer is obvious: It is not compassionate at all. It is time for
us to take responsibility for ourselves and put our Nation's finances
in order. And that is exactly what the Republican budget does.
The bottom line of our budget proposal is simple. Under our bill, the
Federal Government would experience steadily declining deficits between
now and 2002--when we would actually have a $3.2 billion surplus. For
the record, that would be the first time in nearly 30 years that the
Federal Government runs a surplus--truly a historic accomplishment.
But deficit numbers alone don't tell the whole story of the
Republican balanced budget. Our budget proposes much more. A
comprehensive overhaul of how our Government does business.
The bill starts by proposing fundamental reform of entitlements. It
would probably surprise most folks to learn that the largest portion of
the Federal budget, by far, is entitlement spending. In fact, spending
on entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
currently consumes about two-thirds of the Federal budget. And, if we
do nothing, spending on these programs will eventually consume the
entire Federal budget, leaving nothing for education, defense, or any
other Federal program.
Accordingly, one of the top priorities in the Republican budget is to
get entitlement spending under control. Our budget starts by reforming
Medicare.
As most of my colleagues are aware, the Medicare trustees warned last
year that the Medicare trust fund would be bankrupt by 2002 if Congress
did not act. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Medicare was
$4.2 billion in the red this year and is now projected to go broke even
sooner that expected, possibly as soon as the year 2000. If we allow
that to happen, we will be putting the health care of millions of
seniors at risk.
Obviously, we can't let that happen. That's why our budget includes
Medicare reforms that would slow the explosive growth of this vital
program. Note that I did not say cut. That's because the Republican
budget does not cut Medicare. Our plan merely slows the rate of growth
of Medicare from the current rate of 10 percent per year to about 7
percent a year. In doing so, our plan would save Medicare from
bankruptcy, while still expanding the ability of seniors to make
choices about their own health care.
But let me repeat. Our plan does not cut Medicare. In fact, Medicare
spending under the Republican budget will increase from $196 billion
this year to $284 billion in 2002.
In addition to Medicare reforms, our budget makes needed reforms to a
number of other entitlements program.
For example, our proposal incorporates much of a Medicaid reform plan
proposed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of our Nation's
Governors. Currently, Medicaid spending is growing by an unsustainable
19 percent a year. By giving States more flexibility in how they
administer Medicaid, this proposal would reduce this rate to 6.6
percent growth per year, twice the rate of inflation. In doing so, the
Republican budget would save $77 billion over the next 6 years while
preserving the health safety net for the poor.
The budget resolution also calls for reform of our Nation's ailing
welfare system. As my colleagues are aware, earlier this year President
Clinton vetoed a Republican welfare reform bill that would have
fulfilled his own promise to ``end welfare as we know it.'' Our bill
calls for Congress and the President to give welfare reform one more
try, and save $53 billion in taxpayer dollars over the next 6 years.
Let me say one last thing about the entitlement reforms proposed in
our budget. We have left Social Security alone. Republicans made that
promise in the 1994 elections, and we plan to stick by it.
Besides entitlement reforms, the Republican budget also proposes an
overhaul of the Byzantine government bureaucracy that has grown up over
the past few decades. Our budget starts by eliminating 130 wasteful and
unnecessary Federal programs, including Goals 2000, the National
Endowment for the Arts, and the President's AmeriCorps Program which,
according to the Government Accounting Office, costs taxpayers over
$25,000 per volunteer. The bill also proposes deep reductions in our
foreign aid spending--$14.2 billion over the next 6 years.
Most importantly, however, our budget calls for the elimination of
two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Commerce, that duplicate the
missions of other departments and which have clearly outlived their
usefulness. In doing so, this bill would save over $10 billion per
year. I am especially proud of this element of our budget--I believe
that nothing demonstrates our commitment to dramatic change than our
willingness to take on special interests and eliminate these wasteful
Cabinet agencies.
Finally, I want to address one of the most important aspects of the
Republican budget resolution: Tax relief for working Americans.
As many of my colleagues are aware, Americans spend a great deal of
time working for the Government instead of for themselves. This year,
the average American worked until May 7--longer than ever before--to
pay their taxes.
Another astonishing statistic. According to a recent report by the
Tax Foundation, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers pay 95 percent of
all taxes. That means that if you are in the top 50 percent of
taxpayers, you are not only working to support your own family, but you
are probably working to support someone else's as well.
To me, this doesn't make any sense. We should be doing everything
possible to help workers in this country make ends meet, not weighing
them down with a crushing tax burden. But that is exactly what we are
doing.
For this reason, I am pleased that our budget contains meaningful tax
relief for working Americans. The centerpiece of our plan is a $500-
per-child tax credit for middle-class families that will help those
families make ends meet. Our budget also contains a repeal of President
Clinton's 1993 gas tax hike, expansion of tax credits for adoption,
enhanced health insurance deductions for the self-employed, and raising
the Social Security earnings limit. Finally, the bill contains a
reduction in job-killing capital gains taxes.
I strongly support these tax reductions. They are fair, reasonable,
and targeted toward working individuals and families who are most in
need of tax relief. I also believe that the tax relief contained in the
Republican budget is a dividend to American taxpayers for our efforts
to reduce wasteful Federal spending.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, the budget we are considering today represents
the Republican vision for the future. Smaller, more cost-effective
Government, a balanced Federal budget, and lower taxes. I don't think
that there is much doubt that these priorities are the priorities of
the American people. The question is: Are we going to look past
partisan political rhetoric and do the right thing, or are we going to
succumb to the temptation of business as usual?
For our sake, and the sake of our children, who will have to pay the
bills that we leave behind, I hope that we will choose to take the
former approach. It is time to do the right thing for the economic
future of this country. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican
balanced budget resolution.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
ridiculous, radical, and revolting Republican resolution to cram a
devastating budget down the throats of the American people. When I
first read the Gingrich-Armey Republican budget proposal, I recalled
hearing that it was deja vu all over again. As I studied the Republican
budget more, I realized that the Republicans must have really enjoyed
shutting down the Federal Government so much last year that they want
to do it all over again.
Then I thought about how the drastic cuts to so many Federal programs
would effect so many people--not just the hard working Federal worker
who experienced so much frustration about wanting to do their jobs and
not being able to--but also the many senior citizens who rely on the
Medicare system to pay for their medical care. The Republicans want to
cut Medicare by over $167 billion over 6 years. These cuts are as deep
as the ones the Republicans tried to get away with last year. Not only
deep cuts to fund Medicare--when Medicare isn't there to pay the
medical and hospital bills for seniors, they will have to pay more out
of their own pocket or not receive the needed health care. The
restructuring of the Medicare program proposed by the Republicans could
threaten the very existence of Medicare.
All over again, just like they tried to get away with last year, the
Republicans propose to cut Medicaid funds to States to provide health
coverage to the poor, the disabled, and pregnant women. If the
Republicans would have their way in this budget, Medicaid would be cut
by $72 billion over the next 6 years, and the total reduction in
funding could be as high as $250 billion. The Republican budget
proposes to tear down the existing Medicaid Program in which the
Federal Government and the American people have already invested
literally billions of dollars, and replace it with a patchwork system
of block grants to States. This combination would jeopardize health
care for millions of low-income children and pregnant women, seniors in
nursing homes, and the disabled, as well as low-income seniors who
depend on Medicaid to pay their Medicare part B premiums.
All over again, the Republicans want to cut funds for the education
of America's children. How many times do the American people have to
tell the Republicans that education is a high priority and that the
best education cannot be provided on a shoestring. The Republicans are
trying to hide the fact that they are
[[Page H5255]]
again trying to cut education programs, claiming that funding would be
frozen at 1996 levels. In discretionary programs, that would mean real
cuts of about 22 percent below the already reduced 1996 level in the 6
years through the year 2002 that this resolution covers.
Now, let's talk about tax breaks. I have a quiz for you: Do you think
the Republican budget attempts again to provide capital gains tax
breaks for the wealthy, or, do you think the Republicans are proposing
to sneak in a $20 billion tax increase on low-income working families
to pay for the rich to get a tax break? Too hard? Not if you've been
awake for that last 2 years and watched the Gingrich-Armey Republicans
try over and over again to pay back their wealthy supporters by trying
to give the rich every tax break and funding advantage they could.
Let's get serious, Republicans. Do you think the American people are
really going to lay down and let you shove this ridiculous budget down
their throats? Not if I can help it, and thank goodness, not if
President Clinton can help it--and he can. He has the guts and the pen
to stop these radical Republican proposals. Let's defeat this
Republican budget proposal now, so we can really get down to business
before we have a repeat of last year's Government shutdowns and threats
of tax increases and teacher layoffs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
Republican budget proposal.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of the balanced budget
amendment which passed this House last year, my concern for the
financial future of our country is well known. I support a balanced
Federal budget because we owe it to our children and grandchildren. It
would be unconscionable to saddle them with the accumulated debts that
we ourselves failed to pay. In this regard, I am very pleased that all
the budget plans we are considering here today also envision a balanced
budget by the year 2002, as well.
However, I am concerned about the treatment of solar and renewable
energy programs and the complete elimination of wind energy research
and development in House Concurrent Resolution 178. These large funding
cuts will greatly harm American research efforts in these important
technologies and give our foreign competitors an unparalled opportunity
to take the world lead from the United States in this high-growth
field.
We have seen other kinds of new technologies invented and developed
by Americans, only to be successfully deployed by foreign countries.
This is the so-called VCR syndrome. We are now in danger of letting our
technological leadership in another important field slip away once
again.
Proponents of cutting the budget for renewables point out that they
are merely eliminating corporate welfare. To this I must note that the
great majority of companies involved in the research, manufacture,
distribution, and supply of renewable energy technologies are
classified as small businesses by the U.S. Small Business
Administration. Rather than eliminating handouts to corporate giants,
these funding cuts are pulling the rug from under the thousands of
small businesses which employ tens of thousands of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, through careful allocation of available funding
resources, we can fully support renewable energy technologies and still
have a balanced Federal budget. This is a combination that will benefit
present and future generations of Americans. I will continue to work
throughout the budget process this year to ensure that renewables get
fair funding treatment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year
1997 budget resolution offered today. The fiscal year 1997 budget
resolution represents a continued attack on the health, safety and
well-being of the majority of the American people. While not as drastic
as the budget proposed by the Republican majority last year, this
budget also is too extreme. By cutting Medicare and Medicaid, the
safety net for vulnerable populations--the elderly, disabled, and poor
children and families--will be in jeopardy, I cannot support a budget
that includes massive Federal spending for new tax breaks while other
critical programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and earned income tax
credit--are greatly weakened. This is not a realistic budget. We
cannot, and should not, enact a budget such as this that promises to
cut spending and cut taxes. If we are serious about reducing the
deficit--as I am--we should make the hard choices to being our Federal
spending in line. This budget, however, promises to make life easier
for the affluent, while balancing the budget on the backs of the poor
and disadvantaged.
I support a balanced budget. In fact, I have cosponsored and voted in
favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate a balanced Federal
budget. However, while the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution passed by
this committee achieves balance on paper, I cannot support the callous
and irresponsible policy assumptions it uses to achieve these savings.
The policy implications have very real consequences to the citizens of
this Nation.
I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in discretionary
spending included in this budget. Certainly, we must take serious steps
to carefully scrutinize every portion of our Federal budget in order to
control Federal spending and bring our deficit under control. However,
the cuts in discretionary spending included here are too harsh and will
have a serious impact on millions of Americans, most notably the
vulnerable populations that continue to be left behind as we change our
Federal priorities.
For example, the cuts in education leave me very concerned about the
future of this Nation. The education of our children must be a top
priority. The education our children receive should be adequate in
keeping the U.S. economy competitive as we move into the next century.
American children rank dismally in math and science achievement
compared with students from other nations. The proportion of young
people completing high school has remained stagnant for a decade,
despite the ever-increasing demands for education in the job market.
National education reforms under President George Bush's Goals 2000
program pointed our Nation in the right direction. This budget,
however, eliminates Goals 2000. Having all our students starting school
ready to learn, increasing the high school graduation rate, teaching
every adult to read and keeping drugs and violence out of schools are
not goals we should abandon. While our deficit needs to be eliminated,
we must not decimate the education of future generations.
Under this budget, the Legal Services Corporation is cut drastically
in fiscal year 1997--a large step toward the total elimination of the
program by 1999. The Legal Services Corporation is a good example of a
Federal program that is effectively being administered at the local
level. The leadership of this House claims to want to expand the role
of state and local authority while shrinking the size of the Federal
Government. The Legal Services Corporation is a prime example of how
local control of a Federal program is working. The creators of the LSC
recognized that decisions about how legal services should be allocated
are best made not by officials in Washington, but at a local level, by
the people who understand the problems that face their communities. The
LSC provides funds to 323 programs operating over 1,200 neighborhood
law offices. Together they serve every county in the Nation. LSC
programs provide services to more than 1.7 million clients a year,
benefiting approximately 5 million individuals, the majority of them
children living in poverty. The phase-out of the LSC represented in
this budget eliminates a much-needed program and threatens the life and
well-being of every poor or near-poor person in this country.
A well-maintained transportation network is essential for economic
development. If highways cannot be maintained, our goods cannot move in
commerce. Similarly, without continued attention to our Nation's
airports, delays and other difficulties will slow our economy's growth.
In addition, transit funding provides immediate benefits for economic
development, carrying low-income people to their place of work and
reducing congestion in metropolitan areas.
Transportation should not bear higher cuts than other programs. This
budget phases out Federal assistance the operation of mass transit
systems. Operating assistance is essential to transit systems across
the Nation. Transit systems are already taking serious steps to cope
with federal operating cuts of nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 1996
and 12 percent in fiscal year 1995. Transit systems, by necessity, are
operating more efficiently yet still must cut services and increase
fares. The complete elimination of operating assistance would have a
drastic impact and could eliminate necessary public transportation in
communities across our nation.
The elimination of funding for mass transit is just one example of
the hypocrisy of this budget. As this budget pushes people into the
workforce it takes away their means of getting to work. This budget is
unfair and should not be passed by this House.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. I
have numerous reservations with the funding priorities and assumptions
contained in this resolution. However, I will take this opportunity to
highlight three important issues--the deep cuts proposed in
discretionary agriculture spending, the ill-advised Medicaid proposal,
and the proposed elimination of Federal involvement in fossil energy
research.
The budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 again makes a deep cut in
agriculture spending. This Congress passed, earlier this year, an
extreme overhaul of farm programs, setting them on the road to eventual
elimination. Now in this budget resolution, this committee has decided
to make an extreme reduction in the amount of discretionary spending
for agriculture.
[[Page H5256]]
The resolution makes the recommendation to cut total agricultural
discretionary spending from $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $2.1
billion in 2002, a staggering reduction in budget authority. This
discretionary cut mostly takes the form of unspecified reductions in
U.S. Department of Agriculture overhead costs. The members of the
committee and rural America are left to wonder if these cuts will be in
the delivery of farm programs, the delivery of conservation programs,
or the quality of nutrition and food safety programs. Clearly each and
every function of the Department of Agriculture will be impacted by
these assumptions. This committee should question if this is the
appropriate time to be making these cuts when commodity stocks are at
their lowest point in a generation, the livestock industry remains in
extreme distress and new plant diseases continue to spread across the
nation's heartland.
The budget resolution does specify some specific cuts. These cuts are
mainly in USDA research programs. With commodity support already cut by
the new farm bill, our producers need quality agricultural research
more than ever to protect themselves against diseases, insects and
changing environmental conditions. The new farm bill addresses many of
the concerns related to competitive research projects and facilities
buildings projects. The Agriculture Committee currently is undertaking
a comprehensive review of agriculture research programs and will be
writing specific legislation to address the needs of agricultural
research in the future. The Agriculture Committee should be allowed to
do its work without being locked into an extremely restrictive budget
scenario before it is finished.
Finally the budget resolution phases out both title I and title III
of the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. Again, the new farm bill
promised American farmers that their future profitability would be
derived from the world market. Now we are witnessing the elimination of
one of the most successful export enhancement programs ever.
In this budget resolution we see the broken promises of the freedom
to farm bill. As the freedom to farm bill was being passed, sponsors
hailed a new era in farm policy, promised strengthened research
programs and dangled the riches of the world market in front of
American farmers. Now we can see that those promises are broken barely
2 months after the bill was signed. We are willing to do our share to
balance the budget, but rural Americans cannot continue to take these
extreme and unfair budgetary hits.
With regard to Medicaid, I have deep concern about the provisions of
the majority's proposed budget for Medicaid. I do recognize that, at
least with respect to the commitment of Federal Medicaid funding, this
budget makes significant progress over the majority's effort last
year--from the proposed reduction of $182 billion over 7 years last
year to $72 billion over 7 years this year. It thus appears that after
a year of rigorous analysis and intense debate, the members of the
majority have been persuaded that the Federal Government simply cannot
make cuts on the order of those proposed last year without jeopardizing
the health of some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations.
Despite the progress this budget represents, however, I remain deeply
concerned that it will undermine the central mission of the Medicaid
Program, which is to provide a minimum level of health care to the
children, the elderly, and the disabled of this Nation. During
committee markup, I offered a sense-of-the-House amendment to preserve
the basic program elements critical to the performance of Medicaid's
mission. The committee rejected this amendment, indicating that the
level of progress represented by this budget is not as substantial as
the reduced Federal cuts suggest. Unfortunately, the improved Federal
funding level in this budget masks a series of policy proposals that
will jeopardize the health of children, seniors, and the disabled.
Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that my concerns about this budget stem
not from any hesitation about whether to reform Medicaid. Medicaid must
be reformed through such measures as utilization of managed care,
enhanced State flexibility, and the streamlining of regulations. Yet
the goal of reform is to improve the program's effectiveness, not to
undermine it.
Perhaps the greatest threat to Medicaid's mission contained in this
budget is the dramatic reduction in State contributions it allows. In
addition to limiting Federal contributions, the budget caps State
contributions to Medicaid at 40 percent, allowing the many States with
match rates between 41 and 50 percent to lower their required
contributions. Thus, although the Federal cut has been reduced to $72
billion, the total potential reduction in Medicaid spending after
accounting for reduced State contributions is $265 billion. It is
simply not possible to withdraw these vast sums from the system without
endangering the health safety net that Medicaid has historically
provided to North Dakotans and others around this Nation.
This budget would also permit States to use discredited--and
currently illegal--funding mechanisms to further limit State
contributions to Medicaid. Once again, States could establish schemes
to tax providers or collect intergovernmental transfers from State
entities, later rebating these funds to the payors, labeling the
rebates as Medicaid expenditures, and claiming Federal matching funds
for them. Given that the payment of such rebates involves no genuine
State outlays for health services, legalizing these sham financing
systems make State matching requirements meaningless.
The majority points with pride to the list of groups and services
covered under the Medicaid proposal contained in this budget. Upon
review, however, several important groups have been excluded and the
list of covered services is revealed as a largely empty promise. With
respect to covered services, this budget merely requires states to
offer some of the various health services listed, while repealing all
of the Federal standards that speak to the amount, duration, and scope
of these services. Thus, a State could cover only a few days of
hospital care even in the event of a serious illness such as a heart
attack. Without the minimal Federal standards, people guaranteed
coverage under the majority's plan may find the guarantee to be a
hollow one.
One of the groups excluded by this budget is poor children. This
budget repeals the guarantee of health care coverage for children over
the age of 12 living in low-income families, more than half of whom
have parents who work. For low-income parents in North Dakota, knowing
that the basic health care of their children will still be covered if
they leave the welfare rolls has been an important element in
encouraging the transition from government dependence to productive
employment. Thus, not only will this repeal endanger the health of
these vulnerable children, it will provide a strong disincentive for
parents to move from welfare to work. With respect to the disabled,
this budget repeals the federal definition of disability, allowing
states to narrow this definition as they see fit and thereby exclude
many disabled Americans from coverage.
Mr. Chairman, this budget also threatens senior citizens. While under
the majority's plan States are supposed to abide by federal nursing
home quality standards, Federal monitoring of quality is terminated and
States will have nearly unfettered discretion with regard to monitoring
and enforcement. We must not forget that it was precisely because many
States proved incapable of ensuring quality nursing home care that
Congress was prompted to enact basic quality standards in 1987. In
another strike against seniors, one that will have particular impact in
North Dakota, this budget substantially reduces payment by Medicaid of
copayments, premiums, and deductibles for those Medicare beneficiaries
whose income is below the poverty line. Given that many low-income
seniors already devote large portions of their monthly budgets to
health care costs, this cutback will force seniors into a cruel choice
between staying health and meeting life's other basic expenses.
Mr. Chairman, I will work diligently to address the flaws outlined
above and I am hopeful that the majority will join in this effort. As
we move forward to balance the Federal budget, we must not abandon the
long-standing Federal commitment to the basic health of the children,
seniors and disabled of our Nation.
Finally, I have serious concerns about the provisions in this
resolution which would eliminate the Federal Government's involvement
in fossil energy research and development. This is very short-sighted
policy. Research may not immediately improve profitability, but the
long-term benefits are immeasurable. With respect to fossil energy,
development of new energy processes to the point of commercially
acceptable financial and technical risk is a long road that regulated
industries have not been willing to go alone. Those joint private-
federal ventures which have been undertaken, like the numerous projects
underway at the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand
Forks, ND, have brought a wealth of information to the energy industry.
The Federal Government has a stake in research and development of
fossil fuels. For example, utilities are not going to initiate their
own research on emission controls. If they did, it would be an open
invitation to regulators to impose new or stricter standards and bigger
costs under the doctrine of best available control technology. What's
more, energy markets are specialized and highly competitive and would
be unlikely to consider complementary solutions.
Without the Federal Government's involvement in fossil energy
research and development, it is unlikely this important work would be
done. In fact, many companies have eliminated their alternative fuels
programs, leaving only a tiny contingent of researcher. It is in the
national interest to preserve this infrastructure with limited Federal
funding.
[[Page H5257]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget
resolution.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, the Budget Resolution does
not have the force of law, but is a working document Congress uses to
set the spending limits and broad priorities for the appropriations
process through which the spending plan for the coming fiscal year is
put in place.
Our action today is just the first step in that process, and, if last
year is any indication, we have a lot of work ahead of us after today's
votes.
Each of the four alternatives considered today is itself the product
of compromise and accommodation. I would venture to guess that no
Member of this body will agree with every provision in any of them.
While I disagree with certain of its techniques to achieve budget
saving, I voted for the so-called coalition budget in frank protest to
several aspects of the Republican proposal, particularly its
elimination of direct student lending. In addition, the coalition
budget best reflects my concerns that reforms in the areas of health
care and welfare remain prudent and fair and that the Federal
commitment to education in general is honored.
The committee resolution may be an acceptable starting point for
budget discussions, but I would place my party on notice that I can be
expected in the authorization and appropriations process to object to
elimination of the direct student loan program and any cuts in
education. I also have doubts about the case for elimination the
Department of Commerce, although reform of its functions and merger
with the Special Trade Representatives', Office may be in order.
While the hard work remains ahead, it is crucial that the goal of a
balanced budget be advanced, but in such a way as to ensure fairness
for all.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the
pending resolution. In an echo of last year's dysfunctional priorities,
the majority has once again chosen to balance the budget on the backs
of the poor, children, and the elderly.
The Republicans refer to this as an honest budget. But I do not
believe they are being honest with the American people. They claim to
be helping working families by reducing their tax burden. Instead,
their budget cuts the earned income tax credit by $20 billion. This
action would raise taxes on more than 6 million working families. The
resolution also cuts capital gains taxes for the wealthy by $176
billion. It seems clear to me that this resolution is not a family tax
relief as the Republicans refer to it, but a family tax burden.
They claim to shift power out of Washington back to neighborhoods,
communities, and people. But their resolution cuts welfare spending by
$12 billion over President Clinton's balanced budget and gives no
details of how neighborhoods, communities, and people are supposed to
deal with poor children who are lacking the basic necessities of life.
The Republicans claim to give States authority to improve Medicaid
and save Medicare from bankruptcy. However the truth is that this
authority to improve comes in the form of a repeal of Federal
enforcement of nursing home quality standards which have, by the way,
dramatically improved the quality of nursing home care. Elderly would
no longer be safeguarded from the use of restraints, drugs, or other
poor quality care.
There are about 166,000 of my constituents in El Paso who are
eligible for Medicaid. Of those eligible, approximately 22,000 aged and
disabled use Medicaid for nursing home and in-house care or community
based care. There are 826 nursing home recipients in El Paso as well.
The Republican savior of Medicare takes the form of more cuts to the
program. The budget resolution cuts Medicare spending by $167 billion.
They have achieved this reduction with deep cuts in payments to the
hospitals and home health providers that serve beneficiaries. This
jeopardizes both quality of care and access to health services. Their
$167 billion cut would result in insufficient funded hospitals that are
unable to keep up with cost. There are approximately 60,000 Medicare
beneficiaries in El Paso. El Paso hospitals would have to drastically
cut services and staffing. For example, El Paso's Thomason General
Hospital predicts the effects of the cuts to be: reduction of staff by
as much as 992 positions; clinics would be open only 2.5 days a week it
would eliminate Level One Trauma services; and it would reduce all of
the outpatient services.
The Republicans also claim to shift control of education out of
Washington. In reality, education is once again under the budgetary ax.
This proposal seeks to eliminate the direct student loan program,
affecting over 2.5 million students and cutting nearly $4.5 billion
over 6 years. There are also a number of substantial cuts and
terminations in discretionary education spending, including an
elimination of the Goals 2000 and bilingual and immigrant education.
The termination of the bilingual education program will be
devastating to El Paso. In fiscal year 1996 El Paso received $661,246
in bilingual education grants. Losing this source of funding would put
an enormous burden on our schools.
Our immigrant population is growing, and the vast majority of these
immigrants are from Asia and Latin America. if we capitalize upon their
linguistic abilities, we can ensure that young immigrants and the
children of immigrants will be a valuable asset to our national
competitiveness in the global economy. If we fail to adequately fund
bilingual and immigrant education, we will set up many children for
failure and lose the benefits of their valuable linguistic skills.
In the long run, the result will be that many of our young immigrants
and their children will be able to contribute fully to the future
stability of our economy. I do not believe that neglecting the needs of
a portion of our population that speaks English as a second language is
sound policy. If we do not provide adequate funding for this program
now, we will pay heavily in the future.
Terminating funds for the Goals 2000 program would interrupt
statewide school reform plans which set higher academic standards for
all students. The elimination of almost $400 million in resources for
schools will end ongoing state and local education reform efforts
affecting 9 million students and terminate 40 percent resource centers.
This termination would effectively cut 351 students and 14 teachers in
the El Paso area from this program.
For the preceding reasons, I do not support this resolution. It
continues the Republican policy of catering to the wealthy and
neglecting working families, the elderly, and the poor. It will be
devastating to El Paso and our Nation as a whole.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the budget resolution offered
by the Republican majority. The Republican majority has once again done
a bad job of putting together this most basic budget blueprint. Like
last year, this resolution is a product of closed-door meetings with
party leaders, pollsters, and lobbyists for multinational corporations,
instead of a meaningful accounting of the needs of average working
Americans and senior citizens.
This resolution is particularly deceptive and disingenuous because if
the Congress follows this budget resolution, the American people will
feel its harsh effects only after the November elections. The proposal
will needlessly put us on another collision course with the President
that could lead to new Government shutdowns and numerous stopgap
spending measures. I have no doubt that the resolution's proposals will
hurt seniors living on fixed incomes, middle-class and low-income
families, and make it more difficult to ever balance the Federal
budget. Indeed, while the bill is supposed to help the Republican party
appear kinder and gentler to the American people as November draws
near, there is little that is kind or gentle about this bill.
We must do better. Congress needs to put forth in this budget
resolution a clear and honest vision of the future--one that says the
Federal Government can work more efficiently and effectively, while
also helping to empower individuals and working families to succeed.
The Republican resolution offers no such hope.
I am fully prepared to support a budget plan which is balanced in 7
years using Congressional Budget Office numbers, as required by the
bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Unfortunately, this legislation
is neither bipartisan nor balanced. A better balanced budget plan would
integrate the following principles into a new budget blueprint for the
future.
RESPECT PAST SUCCESS
Not surprisingly, the Republican majority in Congress is doing
everything it can to ignore the tremendous deficit reduction success of
President Clinton and the previous Democratic Congress. The Federal
budget deficit has been cut in half since 1992, the last year of the
Bush administration. Having fallen 4 years in a row, the deficit is now
at its lowest level as a percentage of the economy since 1979.
To help achieve this deficit reduction success, hundreds of Federal
programs have been cut or eliminated, the Federal work force has been
reduced by 200,000 workers, and 16,000 pages of Federal rules and
regulations have been eliminated. All of this was accomplished as a
result of President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction plan enacted into
law without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate.
Still we are only way to a balanced budget. More can and must be done
to continue to improve our fiscal condition and economy overall. The
Republican majority needs to be reminded that we are not starting from
scratch. Democrats have already proved that the budget deficit can be
substantially reduced on a careful, considerate, and orderly basis. A
radical transformation of the budget is unwarranted and unnecessary.
Unlike this budget resolution, therefore, we do not need to endanger
critical programs
[[Page H5258]]
which promote the well-being of the neediest Americans--such as
children and the elderly. Nor, do we need to eliminate programs which
promote economic growth, job creation, and the competitiveness of the
United States. We certainly do not need to weaken programs which help
middle-class Americans retrain after losing jobs to unfair
international competition and which educate their children to prepare
for a rapidly changing economy.
FORGET TAX CUTS UNTIL THE BUDGET IS BALANCED
Balancing the budget is difficult enough without tax cuts siphoning
off desperately needed revenue. Both the $176 billion tax cut called
for in this budget resolution and the $117 billion cut proposed in the
President's budget will make it more difficult to balance the budget.
If we would forget tax cuts, we could balance the budget sooner and in
a less disruptive way. That would be better in the long run for our
economy and average working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, nobody likes taxes. We all believe we would be happier
with a little more of our own money in our pockets. But at what cost?
Should we risk not balancing the budget because some want to provide a
short-sighted, election-year gift to taxpayers instead of waiting to
provide tax cuts after the budget is balanced. My parents raised me to
believe that you couldn't have dessert until you have eaten your
vegetables. Republicans want to eat dessert first in return for a
promise to eat their vegetables later. Common sense tells us that is a
bad idea.
I truly believe that average working Americans are more than willing
to forgo a Federal tax cut today if it means the Federal Government
will be able to get its act together and balance the budget without
hurting them in the long term.
Both the Republican majority and the President are wrong on tax cuts.
If balancing the budget is our primary goal, tax cuts should be made
contingent on balancing the budget first.
attack corporate welfare
The Republican budget resolution proposes to cut only $26 billion in
corporate subsidies and tax breaks. This is a step in the right
direction, and the Republican majority should be applauded for putting
forward proposals in this area. But the cuts represent only the tip of
the iceberg.
President Clinton has proposed significantly more in corporate
welfare savings--some $54 billion. And, independent groups across the
ideological spectrum have proposed tens of billions of dollars more.
The conservative CATO Institute found $85 billion in corporate welfare
encompassed in 125 programs. The Progressive Policy Institute
identified $265 billion in potential savings spread across 120
programs. Clearly, a much greater level of savings in corporate welfare
subsidies and tax breaks can be found for this budget resolution.
For example, I have been fighting for many years to eliminate what I
believe to be a huge tax loophole in the federal tax system favoring
foreign corporations operating in our country. The tax system permits
foreign companies to overcharge for goods they provide to subsisdiares
in the United States, which effectively reduces the subsidiary's tax
liability. This activity, commonly referred to as ``transfer pricing,''
may result in annual lost revenue to the Federal Government of as much
as $33 billion, according to at least one estimate. I have introduced
legislation to help address this problem and I would again urge the
Republican majority to integrate my proposal into this budget
resolution.
Corporations should shoulder a greater portion of the funding burden
of our Government. In 1945, corporations contributed 35 percent of
budget revenues. That share is down to 11 percent today, more than a
two-thirds reduction. Instead of cutting taxes for wealthy stockholders
and profitable corporations under this budget resolution, we should do
more to reduce inefficient and unfair subsidies and tax breaks which
place greater burdens on average working taxpayers.
don't weaken good programs
Medicare has clearly been one of the most successful programs of the
Federal Government. In tandem with Social Security, Medicare has
dramatically reduced the poverty rate among elderly Americans and
increased overall quality of life. This is no time to be making
unwarranted and damaging changes to the program.
Though the budget resolution represents an improvement from the
Republican budget proposals on Medicare last year, the cuts are still
excessive. We can certainly find limited savings from hospitals and
medical equipment suppliers, as has been done in the past and proposed
by the President this year. however, if we go too far with such cuts,
small hospitals will close and the quality of health care will drop,
especially in areas like mine which are outside major metropolitan
centers. The Republican proposals on Medicare must still be moderated
significantly.
Many seniors want to see a greater emphasis on reducing waste, fraud,
and abuse in the Medicare program. I agree. The President has just
completed the first year of a major new effort to crack down on waste,
fraud, and abuse which has netted $43 million from Medicare programs so
far this year. We need to build on this effort.
The budget proposals for Medicaid are also cause for great concern.
While Medicaid is commonly known as the medical program for low-income
families, few realize how important the program is for senior citizens.
In Pennsylvania, the care of 64 percent of nursing home patients is
Medicaid funded. I am worried that the excessive cuts for Medicaid
proposed under the Republican budget resolution will increase the cost
of nursing home and medical care to seniors and their families.
Programs to protect the environment and our natural resources have
also had tremendous success over the past 25 years. Our air and water
has gotten cleaner, and our national parks have been protected from
adverse development and exploitation. Unfortunately, this budget
resolution proposes a 26-percent cut on spending for natural resource
and environmental programs. Given the urgent need to address
environmental problems in northeastern Pennsylvania, such as numerous
Superfund sites and coal-damaged lands spread across this region, I am
greatly concerned about such cuts.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the meager amounts of money our country
spends on economic development each year has brought great hope to so
many smaller communities in our country, including those in my region.
The Economic Development Administration [EDA], for example, has
provided money to build new buildings and create hundreds of new jobs
in Nanticoke, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, PA. These buildings now serve
as essential anchors for local economic revival and bring in local,
State, and Federal tax dollars far in excess of the original Federal
investment. However, this budget resolution proposes to eliminate the
EDA and its successful programs over the next 4 years. Eliminating this
agency will leave small communities with few places to turn to for
economic development assistance. Certainly, eliminating this agency and
cutting other similar economic development programs are among the worst
ideas in this budget resolution.
Another excellent program which deserves mention is the earned-income
tax credit [EITC] program. Changes to the EITC proposed by President
Clinton in 1993, and enacted by Congress, provided needed tax relief
for working Americans. In Pennsylvania, the expanded credit for 1996
will give low-income, working families an average additional tax break
of $940 per year, and working individuals $240 per year. This budget
resolution rejects the EITC as an effective tax relief and work-
promotion program, by cutting it $26 billion. If the proposal is
enacted, low-income working individuals and families who choose work
over welfare will see their taxes increase. if anything, the EITC
should be expanded, not cut.
eliminate wasteful spending
Although the need to eliminate wasteful spending seems clear, the
Republican majority has actually promoted new wasteful spending in this
budget resolution while forgetting about obvious spending cut targets.
For example, the resolution proposes serious cuts in education,
including spending on libraries and job training programs, but expands
unnecessary programs for the Defense Department. In fact, the budget
resolution provides $12.8 billion more than the Department of Defense
[DOD] asked for in its request to the Congress, even after DOD was
given an additional $7 billion more than requested last year.
Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the Republican majority is
perfectly willing to cut deeply into so many good federal programs, but
greatly increase spending on additional weapons. Our country is no
longer faced with the possibility of a major nuclear attack, yet
Republicans want to spend 30 percent, or $860 million, more than
requested on national missile defense programs. The budget also
proposes to spend $504 million in excess of DOD's request for another
nuclear submarine and $305 million more for fighter aircraft. We simply
do not need, and cannot afford, such unnecessary excess in the defense
budget.
In 1993, I proposed to the Congress a list of proposed spending cuts
totaling $213 billion over 5 years. Many of the cuts have been enacted,
and a number of the programs I proposed for elimination are no longer
in place. Indeed, we have made much progress on eliminating wasteful
spending.
But many large and small wasteful programs continue to be funded in
the proposed Republican budget. One good example of a wasteful small
program is the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]. NED will spend
$32 million on taxpayer supported projects to supposedly foster
democracy around the world. NED, however, is run by U.S. political
parties, business interest groups, and labor unions. As a result, the
participants have promoted not only the worthy goal of democratic
participation, but also taxpayer funded training in American-style
lobbying for business and
[[Page H5259]]
labor interests, as well as the training of foreign media. We simply
should not dedicate scarce resources through private organizations for
such purposes.
The budget resolution also does nothing to cut wasteful subsidy
programs to timber and mining companies. Our country will forgo $700
million over the next 5 years providing below-cost timber sales and
constructing logging road networks. We will receive virtually nothing
for mining of public lands, even though mining companies will earn
billions of dollars on mineral sales. Such subsidies are wasteful, and
are unfair to hard-working taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to reject this budget resolution
and to work to enact a genuinely bipartisan plan which incorporates the
fundamental principles I have discussed. We need a budget plan which is
fair and equitable, which attacks irresponsible spending and embraces
good programs, and which drops reckless tax cuts. The American people
need and deserve much better from this Congress.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution.
Over a year ago, I stood on the floor in support of this essential
effort to balance the Federal budget. Since then, doing so has been my
No. 1 priority as a Member of Congress.
I am pleased to be able to say that over the past year we have taken
the first step toward a balanced budget. We have reduced the deficit
and cut Government spending by $43 billion.
Today, I stand in support of taking the next step forward toward
securing a better future for our children and for our country. This
budget sets reasonable priorities for Federal Government spending,
returns money to the pockets of hardworking American citizens and
returns important decisionmaking power where it belongs--out of the
hands of the Washington bureaucracy and into the hands of States,
municipalities, and families. This resolution balances our country's
economic needs with our commitment to our veterans, seniors, students,
and hard-working taxpayers.
House Concurrent Resolution 178 reforms welfare and Medicaid, and
preserves, protects, and strengthens Medicare for millions of older
Americans. We make these reforms while increasing spending on all three
of these programs, improving services and saving $211 billion over 6
years.
This budget protects our Nation's natural resources and ensures a
clean and healthy environment. The bill recommends increasing funding
for actual Superfund cleanups by $700 million. In New Jersey and around
the country, this means that sites would get cleaned up more quickly
and less time and money would be spent on litigation and overhead. This
bill also provides more funding for our National Park System and safe
drinking water. I strongly support this effort to assure Americans have
cleaner air and water, greater access to outdoor public recreation, and
to protect wilderness and historic areas.
Safe homes, streets, and communities are also a priority under our
budget proposal and we recommend a net spending increase of $9.3
billion, including increased spending for the violent crime reduction
trust fund. We have focused over the past year on making our streets
safer, improving law enforcement, and making commonsense reforms to our
Department of Justice. This budget continues that focus and provides
resources to carry out these priorities.
The House Republican budget also renews America's commitment to those
who have served and those who continue to serve our country in the
armed services. As a veteran myself, I am pleased that under our budget
we were able to increase veterans spending to almost $40 billion and
reject the Clinton administration's proposed cuts in veteran's medical
care, VA hospitals, medical research, and the National Cemetery System.
This budget also continues our efforts to reduce the size of our
Federal Government. Last year, we greatly reduced the size and spending
of Congress. This year, we greatly reduced the size and spending of
Congress. This year and over the next 6 years House Concurrent
Resolution 178 envisions savings of $5 billion by imposing a moratorium
on constructing and acquiring Federal buildings, reducing overhead, and
reducing funding for the Executive Office of the White House by 15
percent.
Finally, unlike other proposals House Concurrent Resolution 178
returns money to the hands of the American people while reducing the
deficit. Our proposal eliminates corporate tax loopholes, provides an
adoption tax credit, and contains a $500-per-child tax credit. This
resolution provides $122 billion in permanent tax relief, of which the
majority will go to taxpayers earning between $30,000 and $75,000
annually.
I am pleased to support this 6-year budget resolution that makes
commonsense spending decisions, sets priorities, continues adequate
levels of spending on important Federal programs to protect our health,
safety, environment. This budget resolution is true to our commitment
to balance the Federal budget and live within our means. I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I rise today
because I am committed to balancing the Federal budget to free future
generations of Americans from the shackles of an enormous national
debt.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation has not had a balanced Federal budget in a
generation. Since that last balanced budget, budget deficits have
climbed to over $100 billion, topping $300 billion along the way, and
the public national debt has ballooned to $5 trillion. That represents
a debt of nearly $19,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United
States. The annual interest on the debt alone is over $235 billion. Two
hundred thirty-five billion dollars that must be spent to service the
debt. Two hundred thirty-five billion dollars that cannot be spent on
educating our children, for providing for our veterans, and returning
poor Americans to work. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to stop the
failed tax and spend policies of the past, and return fiscal sanity to
this Nation.
A balanced budget should provide a smaller Federal Government by
slowing its growth. The balanced budget plan supported by the
Republican majority increases Federal spending by $2.5 trillion between
now and the year 2002. Our balanced budget increases the money
available for student loans. House Concurrent Resolution 178 allows
increases in Medicare spending while ensuring its solvency for future
generations. The Republican plan curbs a bloated, inefficient Federal
bureaucracy, removes decision making from inside the Washington beltway
and returns it to the States, and ensures the future of this Nation for
our children.
A balanced budget should adopt tax policies that allow Americans to
keep more of their take-home pay and allow investors and corporations
to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Our budget enacts a $500-
per-child tax credit, eliminates the marriage penalty, provides a tax
credit for adoption expenses, and creates new savings mechanisms,
American families will be able to keep what they earn. Families also
will save more for their own and their children's future. By allowing
families to keep more of what they earn, our balanced budget will boost
this Nation's sagging national savings average. Greater savings means
more dollars in the economy for job creation and economic growth.
Coupling increased savings with a capital gains tax reduction and a
reduction or elimination of growth-impeding corporate taxation, a
balanced budget will provide the stimulus for economic growth and job
creation. In a time when the Nation's economy is growing at an annual
rate of less than 3 percent and many Americans are faced with increased
job insecurity, House Concurrent Resolution 178 will provide a boom for
the economy and create millions of new jobs. As our budget moves toward
balance, the Federal Government will need to borrow less from the
national savings pool. Corporations will have access to more money to
invest in capital improvements which will boost efficiency while
lowering operating costs. Lower costs allow corporations to create new
jobs and raise wages.
Mr. Speaker, leading economic experts have concluded that once the
Federal budget begins to come into balance, interest rates will begin
to drop. On a mortgage of $100,000, a 2-percent drop in interest rates
will save the mortgage holder $2,161 on interest payments for each year
of a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. On a student loan of $11,000, a 2-
percent interest rate drop would save the student $2,167 over the life
of the average 10-year loan. On a $15,000 car loan, the rate drop would
save the loan holder $180 each year of a 5-year loan.
Mr. Speaker, we must balance the Federal budget. We must shrink the
size and scope of the inflated Washington bureaucracy and return power
to the State and local level, closer to the American people. We must
reform the Medicare system to ensure its solvency for future
generations. We must reform the failed welfare system that rewards
inactivity and discourages work. We must allow Americans to keep more
of what they earn by providing tax cuts and promoting increased
savings. We must allow businesses to create jobs and stimulate economic
growth by providing pro-growth tax incentives.
The economic benefits that are derived from balancing the Federal
budget are enormous. The time has come to end the tax and spend, Big
Government ways of the Congress. A balanced budget will ensure the
fiscal prosperity of this Nation now and provide a economically sound
future for our children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, I must express my profound
disappointment at
[[Page H5260]]
the majority's inability to address the need to end the U.S. dependence
on imported oil.
Renewable energy development is our best hope of moving away from
foreign oil, and moving toward environmentally sound energy choices.
Support for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Programs is vital for our national energy security, particularly
as renewables become increasingly cost-competitive and effective.
In addition, DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
support 45,000 jobs nationwide.
It is inconceivable to me that the majority would phase out our
investment in renewables. The long-term cost savings renewables promise
should make these programs a national priority, not a target for short-
term budgetary gains.
I urge the Congress to reject the budget resolution's treatment of
renewable energy. We should restore and reaffirm our national
commitment to renewable research and development.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Norwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S.
Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, pursuant to
House Resolution 435, he reported the concurrent resolution back to the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
Pursuant to clause 7, rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 226,
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 179]
YEAS--226
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Parker
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Collins (MI)
Ehlers
Hayes
Jacobs
Lewis (CA)
Manzullo
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Packard
Paxon
Quillen
Talent
{time} 1648
Mr. CHAPMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________